Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS.

The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 87, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following list should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Bank of Ireland.

Birmingham United Hospital.

Cambridge University and Town Waterworks.

Dover Corporation.

Durham County Water Board.

Lowestoft Corporation.

Middlesex County Council.

Newport Corporation (General Powers).

Newport Extension.

North Lindsey Water.

North Wales Electric Power.

Sheffield Gas.

Somersham Rectory.

South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Plymouth, Royal Albert Hospital, Devonport, and Central Hospital, Plymouth (Amalgamation, etc.).

Sunderland and South Shields Water.

Torquay Corporation.

Tyne Improvement.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Wandsworth Borough Council.

Wantage Urban District Council.

Watchet Urban District Council.

West Gloucestershire Water.

Workington Corporation

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (by Order).

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SHOREDITCH.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give a comparative statement showing the increase or decrease of unemployment in Shoreditch during the last four years?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As the reply includes a Table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Unemployed persons, resident in the Borough of Shoreditch, on the registers of Employment Exchanges.

—
Number on registers.
Increase (+) or decrease (-) compared with a year earlier.


11th November, 1929
2,434
—


17th November, 1930
4,966
+ 2,532


16th November, 1931
5,303
+ 337


21st November, 1932
5,355
+ 52


20th November, 1931
3,844
- 1,511

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. PARKINSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people unemployed in the cotton industry on 31st October, 1931, and 31st October, 1933, men and women, respectively; and how many have been unemployed for more than one year?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The numbers of insured men and women aged 18 to 64 in the cotton industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at the dates in question were as follow:



Men
Women.


26th October, 1931
59,023
126,364


23rd October, 1933
41,197
65,534

I regret that Statistics showing the numbers included in these figures who had been unemployed for more than one year are not available.

Mr. PARKINSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of mills which have been closed in the cotton industry in Lancashire since October, 1931, to October, 1933, and the number of workpeople who have been discharged?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that during the period October, 1931, to October, 1933, the number of cotton mills that closed down in the North Western Division of the country was 128, of which 116 were in Lancashire. During the same period 47 cotton mills, of which 44 were in Lancashire, have been re-opened. I have no information regarding the number of workpeople discharged during this period; but the hon. Member will be glad to know that whereas the estimated number of insured persons in employment in the cotton industry in the North-Western Division at the end of June, 1931, was approximately 285,000 the estimated number in employment at the end of June, 1933, was approximately 328,500.

Insured persons in the cotton industry classification in Great
Britain.


—
Estimated numbers insured at beginning of July.
Insured persons recorded as unemployed at end of June.


1923.
1933.
1923.
1933.


Men*
…
…
187,620
171,510
38,564
47,214


Boys (aged 16 and 17)
…
…
18,420
8,230
2,498
677


Women*
…
…
324,870
300,940
75,597
76,465


Girls (aged 16 and 17)
…
…
36,530
19,160
5,523
1,282


Totals
…
…
567,440
499,840
122,182
125,638


*Aged 18 and over at July, 1923; aged 18-64 at July, 1933.

Mr. MACDONALD: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cotton operatives unemployed; the number in receipt of statutory benefits; the number on transitional payments; and the number disqualified from transitional payments owing to the means test at the latest date on which figures are available?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in the cotton industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 20th November, 1933, was 101,740. I regret that the remainder of the information desired is not available.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the cotton industry in 1920 and at the latest date on which figures are available, specifying the number under 16 years of age and the number of men and women?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Figures are not available in respect of the number of persons employed in the cotton industry in 1920. As from July, 1923, statistics are available in respect of the number of persons in the cotton industry classification who were insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and the numbers recorded as unemployed, but these figures exclude juveniles under 16 years of age. The following table gives such figures as are available for July, 1923, and July, 1933:

TRANSFERRED WORK (MOSSEND TO CORBY).

Mrs. SHAW: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour what facilities will be given by the Ministry of Labour for the removal of those workers and their families who may be transferred from Messrs. Stewart and Lloyd's works at Mossend to Corby, Northampton?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The normal facilities of this kind are limited to the advance of fares of workpeople finding employment at a distance and, in the case of those entitled to unemployment benefit, repayment of one-half of the advance in excess of 4s. out of the Un-
employment Fund. There are also certain special facilities under the Industrial Transference Scheme applying to unemployed married men and their families transferred from depressed areas. I shall be prepared to consider how far these facilities can be made available in cases where I am satisfied that a charge on public funds can properly be authorised.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that Mossend is regarded as a distressed area or not, and has the right hon. Gentleman power to transfer workpeople if it is not?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that. I am aware that a great many people are moving from Mossend to Corby where these new works are. I am certain that a firm of this importance and high reputation will do their utmost to remove as many people as they can. With regard to those whom they are not proposing to remove, I will, in consultation with them, see whether we are justified in giving assistance for this purpose.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will not give a preference in this case which he will not give in every other case?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly not. It is part of our policy where we can, and where we think we are justified to assist in. removing people from one area to another.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the change in the number of insured coal miners at work since the Coal Mines Act, 1930, came into operation; and also the change in the number of insured workers at work in all other industries since the same date?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is long and includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When circulating the reply, will the right hon. Gentleman state how mnay coal-cutting and other machines have been introduced in mines since 1930?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the subject matter of another question.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Do the figures show greater progress in other industries than that shown by coal mining?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think my hon. Friend had better look at the figures.

Following is the statement:

The various Parts of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, came into operation at different dates; but I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the provisions regulating output, which came into operation on 1st January, 1931. An approximation to the numbers of insured persons in employment in various industries may be obtained from the statistics of the estimated total numbers insured, and the numbers recorded as unemployed.

The following table shows for coal mining and for all other industries, the estimated numbers of insured persons in Great Britain at July, 1930, and July, 1933, and the numbers recorded as unemployed in November and December, 1930, and November, 1933.


Date.
Estimated numbers insured.


Coal mining.
All other industries.


July, 1930
1,069,370
11,068,030


July, 1933
1,023,840
11,596,160



Numbers recorded as unemployed.


24th November, 1930
225,771
2,068,155


22nd December, 1930
210,986
2,200,033


20th November, 1933
311,044
1,934,028

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 11 and 12.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of insured persons under the Unemployment Acts for the year 1927 and each year since up to 1933, inclusive;
(2) the number of adult insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, giving females and males separately, for the year 1927 and each year since up to 1933, inclusive?

Mr. DAGGAR: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the year 1927 and each year since up to 1933, inclusive, giving females and males separately?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may,

Estimated numbers of persons aged 16 to 64 insured under the Unemployment
Insurance Acts in Great Britain.


—
Men (aged 18–64).
Boys. (aged 16–17).
Women (aged 18–64).
Girls, (aged 16–17).
Total.

July, 1927
…
…
…
7,851,950
574,550
2,696,900
410,200
11,533,600


July, 1928
…
…
…
7,907,000
562,700
2,747,600
411,700
11,629,000


July, 1929
…
…
…
8,009,700
587,600
2,798,900
437,800
11,834.000


July, 1930
…
…
…
8,174,000
595,000
2,920,000
449,000
12,138,000


July, 1931
…
…
…
8,442,000
579,000
3,041,000
438,000
12,500,000


July, 1932
…
…
…
8,582,500
556,800
2,978,000
425,700
12,54,3,000


July, 1933
…
…
…
8,674,000
507,400
3,046,300
392,300
12,620,000


The figures include persons insured under the Special Schemes for the Banking and Insurance Industries.

Mr. DAVIES: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed adults in receipt of benefit from the Insurance Fund for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933 to date, respectively, together with the number of wives and adult dependants in receipt of benefit for the same periods?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The average numbers of men and women with claims admitted for standard or insurance benefit in Great Britain during the years in question were as follow:


1930
1,581,360


1931
1,803,823


1932
1,286,354


1933 (January to November).
1,038,418

The total number of separate individuals concerned in each year are not available.

Statistics giving the information desired in respect of dependants are available only for 2nd February, 1931, and 28th November, 1932. It may be estimated, on the basis of information derived from sample inquiries, that at the former date dependants benefit was admitted on claims for standard benefit in respect of 702,000 wives and 26,000 other adult dependants, and at the latter date on claims for insurance benefit in respect of 567.000 wives and 16,000 other adult de-
circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

pendants. The figures for 1932 and 1933 given above are not strictly comparable with those for earlier years in view of the changes in the conditions for the receipt of insurance benefit introduced in November, 1931.

GRASS-MOWERS, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. YOUNG: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men employed temporarily by the Middlesbrough Corporation for grass-mowing in the corporation cemeteries have had to be classed as agricultural workers; that the corporation has been debarred from franking their insurance cards; that, in consequence, the men have been disentitled to receive benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, which had they not accepted the work they would have continued to enjoy; and whether he is prepared to compensate the men concerned and to include provisions in the forthcoming legislation to prevent a continuance of such inequalities?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men are engaged to cut the grass by the roadside, and that others with similar records are engaged to cut grass on the roads inside the cemetery? The work is identical, yet one is disqualified and the other is not.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is because I am not aware of any of these things that I am making the inquiries.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the answer to the whole House, as it is rather important?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly. When I have the answer to it, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will circularise public assistance authorities with a view to securing that, when dealing with transitional payment cases, they should not consider any sums received as maternity benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in reply to a question on 13th November upon the powers and duties of local authorities in this matter in relation to public assistance. This statement applies equally to transitional payments. It is not a matter upon which I have power to issue directions to authorities.

DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of children in receipt of dependants' benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 to date?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The only dates in the period named, for which separate figures are available showing the number of children in respect of whom dependants' benefit was authorised on applications for insurance benefit, are 2nd February, 1931, and 28th November, 1932, when it is estimated that the numbers were approximately 1,194,000 and 847,000 respectively. These figures are not, however, strictly comparable in view of the changes in the conditions for the receipt of insurance benefit introduced in November, 1931.

PHYSICAL TRAINING CENTRE, CARDIFF.

Mr. THORNE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the name and rank of the person appointed to take
charge of the physical training centre at Cardiff; and whether attendance at it will be necessary to entitle able-bodied unemployed to unemployment benefit or transitional payments?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The instructor at the Physical Training Class for Unemployed Men, which it is proposed to open very shortly at Cardiff, will be a Mr. A. Brooks, a qualified physical training instructor who was appointed to the Ministry of Labour a year ago. He was previously employed as a physical training instructor by a Local Education Authority. Before that he was in the Army. Attendance of unemployed men at this and similar Centres organised by the Department in different parts of the country, is entirely voluntary and unwillingness to attend in no way affects receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, or transitional payments.

Mr. THORNE: Was it not possible to get an instructor without having to apply to the Army?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not far better to employ someone who has been used to handling men?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Was this gentleman's experience entirely derived from his Army experience? Has he had any other experience?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have said in my answer that he is a qualified physical training instructor who was appointed by the Ministry of Labour a year ago. He was previously employed by the local education authority as a physical training instructor.

Mr. JONES: Has this gentleman been trained at a physical training college?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have stated that he is a qualified instructor. He satisfied the requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (WAGES AND RESEARCH).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if (he will state the average weekly wage in the cotton industry in 1920 and in 1932, respectively?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that information is not available as to the weekly earnings of operatives in the
cotton industry in 1920 and 1932. Information as to average weekly earnings in certain weeks in 1924, 1928 and 1931 are contained in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for June, 1926, October, 1929, and January, 1933, copies of which are in the Library.

Mr. CHORLTON: 80.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Matters affecting research into the processes employed in the cotton industry are dealt with by the British Cotton Industry Research Association which receives grant aid from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The attention of the authorities of that Research Association is being directed to the hon. Member's question. But the Association is already well aware of the importance of the question of promoting the greater use of Indian cotton in this country and is in close touch with the Committee set up in Lancashire to deal with this matter. The Chairman of the Association is a member of that Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are contemplated with a view to absorbing in employment under the proposed unemployment assistance board those persons now in the regular or temporary service of local public assistance committees?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether persons now employed in making transitional payments will be preferentially treated as a result of their experience in the formation of the staff of the unemployment assistance board?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on this subject on 28th November to the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr.
Smedley Crooke), of which I am sending the hon. Members a copy.

WRITING ASSISTANTS AND TYPISTS (PROMOTION).

Miss CAZALET: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give an assurance that the large number of candidates declared successful at the recent open competition for the clerical grade will not adversely affect the promotion prospects of writing assistants and typists employed in the large headquarter offices in London and Edinburgh?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 11th December to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), of which I am sending her a copy.

WAR OFFICE (SURPLUS PROPERTIES).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of sites in Great Britain owned by the War Office but not actually used at the present time for any object connected with War Office matters or with any industrial or other undertaking, giving the localities in each case and the acreage concerned?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): There are a number of properties owned by the War Office which are not in use and are for disposal. I should be pleased to show a list of them to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: While accepting the hon. Gentleman's offer with thanks, may I ask whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view of ensuring, if possible, that new industries are made aware of the possibilities of War Department land that is for disposal?

Mr. COOPER: Yes. Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Mr. PARKINSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to give effect to the undertaking to consult with the organisations of employers and work-
people engaged in the operation of road transport with the object of setting up a joint body for the establishment and regulation of proper wages and working conditions in the road transport industry?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In view of the difficult problems which arise in connection with the establishment of suitable joint machinery for the road transport industry in this connection, I have considered it to be desirable to invite experts to assist my Department in an advisory capacity, and I am glad to say that Messrs. W. Edwards, J. S. Nicholl, Ernest Bevin and A. N. Denaro have been good enough to agree to act in this capacity. I hope that with their assistance it will be possible to take such action as will enable suitable joint machinery to be planned and established.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (GERMANS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants have entered Great Britain from Germany since the 1st January, 1933; and how many entered this country in the correspondent period of 1932?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): During the nine months ended 30th September last, the number of Germans coming to this country from all parts of the world, including tourists, business visitors, students and others, was 40,509 and the number of those who embarked was 35,977. The corresponding figures for 1932 were 33,494 landings and 30,492 embarkations. It is not possible to say how many of these persons can be described as immigrants from Germany, as statistics are based upon nationality and not upon port of departure, but as I explained in an answer on 16th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the excess of landings over embarkations for this period is a normal feature which tends to correct itself during the last quarter when the holiday season has come to an end. The difference of the excess between the two years is only 1,530.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS.

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the Home Secretary in how many cases in connec-
tion with the juvenile courts established under the Children's Act women justices have been placed on the panel; in how many cases no women were appointed; and in how many areas there are no women magistrates?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received information from 986 petty sessional divisions. In 773 divisions women justices have been appointed to serve on the juvenile court panel and in the remaining divisions no such appointments have been made. I understand that on 1st November there were 31 small boroughs where no women had been appointed to the borough commission of the peace. There were women justices on every county commission but there were 164 county divisions to which no woman justice had been attached. I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that since the 1st November 71 women have been added to county and borough commissions.

Mr. MANDER: What action is taken to see that there is a woman available to serve in every one of these juvenile courts?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure the Lord Chancellor will take such action as he thinks proper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction at Bow Street, on 9th December, of a motor driver who pleaded guilty to being drunk and driving dangerously in New Oxford Street, for which he was fined £14 3s. and disqualified from holding a licence for 12 months; and whether he will circularise magistrates generally suggesting that persons convicted of such offences should be permanently deprived of driving licences?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The case to which the hon. Baronet refers had not come to my notice. I could not suggest to magistrates that in dealing with such cases they should refrain from exercising any discretion, and that disqualification for life, or indeed for any other period, should be ordered without regard to the circumstances.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make himself acquainted with the facts in the case—a very scandalous one?

ROAD SURFACE TREATMENT.

Mr. STOURTON: 83.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the issue of Circular 282A (Roads), of 1929, has failed to induce highway authorities to make extensive use of non-slipping road-surface materials; and if he will now take steps to enforce the use of such materials with a view to minimising the risk of accidents?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): My Divisional Road Engineers report that the method of surface treatment suggested in Circular No. 282 (Roads) is being generally followed by highway authorities and that there has been a marked improvement in the provision of non-skid road surfaces. We are, however, reviewing this matter in connection with the investigation of the circumstances and causes of road accidents. If my hon. Friend can draw my attention to particular cases, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the Parliamentary Secretary send a copy of that circular to the City of Westminster, the most perilous part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that when granite chips are used these slips do not occur?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. TINKER: 26.
asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to say what colliery companies have submitted schemes to him respecting the insurance of workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act; whether such schemes meet with his approval as being an adequate safeguard; and will he say if any county or district has failed to place schemes before him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the procedure adopted in this matter, to the reply which I gave him on the 20th July, and as regards the present position to the statement which I made on the 27th of last
month in reply to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn). As regards Lancashire, I am glad to say that a new Mutual Indemnity Association has now been established with power to deal with cases of disablement, and that the Articles of another Association are being altered to cover such cases.

Mr. TINKER: If a scheme from Lancashire meets with his approval, will the right hon. Gentleman submit the same to the Miners Federation of Great Britain to see what they think about it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I am aware considerable progress has been made in making an arrangement to deal with this problem. It may well be that we may have to make other alterations as time goes on.

Mr. TINKER: If satisfaction is not given within a month or two, will the right hon. Gentleman help forward a private Member's Bill on the matter?

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer this kind of thing is to go on causing suffering and injury? Cannot the Government do something in this case?

Mr. PIKE: May I ask if the Socialist party attempted to do anything during their last period of office?

Mr. TINKER: Yes, we did.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT (POLLS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that paid canvassers are employed by the cinema trade and paid as much as £1 a day and a bonus dependent upon the results of the poll; and whether he will introduce legislation limiting the amount of permissible expenditure where polls are taken to decide the opening of cinemas on Sunday?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information other than a statement to this effect made by a member of a deputation which my hon. Friend introduced to me on 19th July. I am not satisfied as to the necessity for legislation.

Sir B. PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any prospect of issuing an order prohibiting the use
of paid canvassers, hired motor cars and large advertisements when there is a poll on the matter of the Sunday opening of cinemas?

Mr. PIKE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the various religious bodies which oppose the Sunday opening of cinemas also employ paid canvassers, and that they employ them on Sundays; and will he ascertain whether or not they receive extra pay for those services?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the paid canvassers in the employ of religious bodies are paid for their religious work, and not for canvassing on Sundays?

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. DORAN: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the proposed presentation of a film entitled, Whither Germany; and, as this film is likely to prejudice our relations with a friendly country and in view of recent cases where films have offended against public taste or decency, if he will seek legislative powers to ban the exhibition of such films?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no knowledge of this film and cannot express any opinion as to its character. I understand that application to exhibit it in London was recently made to the London County Council and that permission was given. As I stated recently in reply to a question by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I am of opinion that it is best that final responsibility in this matter should rest as at present with the cinematograph licensing authorities.

Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House were given a special invitation to attend a showing of this film, and that for some reason or other the exhibition of the film was cancelled? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the film was done in order to stimulate ill-feeling between this country and Germany and to try and rekindle the fires of war, and will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lovat-Fraser.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 31.
asked the Home Secretary the number of hours during which it is proposed to lock the prisoners in their cells during the period from mid-day on Saturday, 23rd December, to the morning of Wednesday, 27th December, in the convict prisons of Maidstone, Dartmoor, Parkhurst, Chelmsford, and Aylesbury, respectively, and in the local prisons of England and Wales; and whether any provision is made for concerts, lectures, or other recreation for the prisoners in each of the convict and local prisons during the Christmas holidays?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot state the periods for which it will be necessary to confine prisoners to their cells at each of the 32 establishments. Arrangements over the Christmas week-end will generally be the same as at other weekends except that Christmas Day will be treated as a Sunday. Boxing Day will be treated as an ordinary week-day, subject to such modifications in the afternoon as local conditions may require, including the claims of the prison staff who are entitled to due consideration. Week-end arrangements necessarily vary, according to the circumstances of each establishment, but normally include a period of exercise, or a concert or lecture on the Saturday afternoon; a chapel service and a period of exercise on Sunday morning; and on Sunday afternoon some form of service or rendering of music, with the addition—wherever possible—of a second period of exercise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

HAVERFORDWEST GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will have inquiries made into the case of the dismissal of four ex-service men, masters of the Haverfordwest Grammar School, with a view to their reinstatement, having regard to the fact that this action is not in accordance with the advice of the local education authority and will result in loss of pensions to these ex-service men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend understands that in the result of a recent discussion between the governors of the Haverfordwest Grammar School and the
local education authority, the matter referred to in the question will be further considered by the governors at a meeting which will take place shortly. In the meantime my Noble Friend is of opinion that any action on his part would be inexpedient.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.

Captain FULLER: 33.
(for Sir JOHN HASLAM) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if his Department are prepared to make a monetary grant to religious denominations who, on their part, are prepared to build and equip non-provided schools in the newly populated areas on the outskirts of our towns caused by re-housing and abolition of slum areas?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Under existing enactments the Board of Education have no power to make any such grants as my hon. Friend suggests.

Captain FULLER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of taking some power, in view of the heavy losses which will devolve on religious demominations because of the housing schemes, and especially having regard to the new houses which will be required in the new housing areas?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

NURSING HOMES.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps in his slum-clearance scheme to include power to inspect, and if necessary to condemn, worn-out dwelling-houses which have been converted into medical nursing homes?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chatham (Sir P. Goff) on Tuesday.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that at Ditchling, East Sussex, the water supply is completely cut off from 2 p.m. each day; whether, as difficulties will be increased by the continued development of this area, he will take immediate steps to help this locality; and if he will com-
plete as soon as possible the survey of the water resources and requirements of the country which was begun in 1923?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the difficulties in this area. A private Bill is being promoted this Session authorising works and arrangements whereby the responsible water undertakers, the Burgess Hill Water Company, may obtain an adequate supply of water. In the meantime, the company are taking steps to obtain temporary supplies. As regards the second part of the question, the survey to which my hon. Friend refers is the regular accumulation of information by my officers in the course of their duties. This work is proceeding.

Mr. DENMAN: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Bill relating to water supplies may be expected to be introduced and printed?

Mr. CHORLTON: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if he will cause to be made a hydrogeological survey of the country to determine the supplies of water available in order that, in any proposals for the supply of rural districts, proper regard may be taken of the requirements of other areas and of the ultimate linking up of undertakings?

Sir H. YOUNG: Most difficulties of rural supplies can be resolved only by making use of local resources, and I have, in a special circular, urged county councils and rural district councils to carry out a thorough survey of existing supplies and the availability of new supplies for their districts. The needs of other areas and the advantages of combined schemes are considered in deciding on proposals put before me.

Mr. CHORLTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen the various recommendations of Royal Commissions, that a central hydrogeological survey should be made of the water capacity of the country, and does he not think that to carry on in the way we are now doing is only tinkering with the question?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Agriculture so that when water is supplied there may be a supply available for animal husbandry?

Sir H. YOUNG: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there will be
full consultation with the Minister of Agriculture in developing this question.

MEDICAL TREATMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. JOEL: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a scheme in the Black Country under which the poorer residents of the middle-class who just escape coming under national health insurance are arranging a system of medical attendance by weekly payments whether well or ill; and whether he will investigate the possibilities of such a scheme with the object of assisting its extension in other districts?

Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not been called to the particular scheme referred to, but I am aware that in certain parts of the country the medical profession have organised public medical service schemes for the medical treatment of persons for whom provision is not made under the National Health Insurance Acts. Such schemes, however, are matters of voluntary arrangement and I have no power to take steps with a view to their extension.

MILK (PASTEURISATION).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Milk Commission as to the condition of some of the smaller pasteurisation plants in the country; whether these plants are periodically inspected; and what steps he is taking to see that safe milk is produced by the pasteurisation processes in use.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the remarks in the report respecting pasteurisation. Under the law there is no control of the process except in the case of milk which is sold under licence as "pasteurised milk." Establishments so licensed are subject to inspection by the officers of the local authority granting the licence, and it is one of the conditions for a licence that the type of apparatus and the methods employed shall be satisfactory to the authority. An officer of my Department is making general inquiries into the efficiency of plants and I propose to issue a memorandum for the guidance of local authorities and their officers in their inspection of such plants.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he does not think
that the report is right when it says that no milk should be allowed to be sold unless it has been treated by officially controlled processes, does he think that there is any control, and, if there is no control, will he seek to impose some control of these various processes, which in many cases are not safe?

Sir H. YOUNG: I should have notice of a question which obviously requires a considered answer.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Will my right hon. Friend include in his memorandum a suggestion that the veterinary surgeons to be appointed should include this as part of their training and responsibilities, so as to have only one inspector instead of two?

Sir H. YOUNG: I shall be happy to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. LEVY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that a number of these firms cannot obtain certificates and licences for their milk because of the insufficiency of water for cooling purposes?

DEATH CERTIFICATES.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many cases have been brought to his notice during the present year in which death certificates issued by doctors have had subsequently to be withdrawn; and whether, to avoid the possibility of premature burials, he will take steps to amend the existing law under which a doctor is not obliged to see the body of the person concerned on the day when he issues the certificate?

Sir H. YOUNG: No such case has come to my notice other than that which formed the subject of my reply of the 27th November last to a question by the hon. Member for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine). I would refer my hon. Friend to that reply.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is it certain that nobody is ever buried alive?

DIPHTHERIA AND MEASLES (PREVENTIVE TREATMENT).

Mr. GROVES: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of children in London County Council institutions who have no parents, immunisation against diphtheria is performed on the direction of the Public Health Committee
of the London County Council; and, if not, what is the position of such children in relation to this immunisation?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed that this form of preventive treatment is not applied to children in these institutions without the written consent of a parent or guardian, and that authority to give such consent on the part of the County Council, when they are in the position of parent or guardian, is delegated to the Education Officer.

Mr. GROVES: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether the consent of all the parents of children immunised against measles in London County Council hospitals was obtained before such immunisation was performed?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is generally recognised that the parents' consent must be obtained whenever practicable, but I am informed that this course is not always feasible. It will be understood that if this form of preventive treatment (which is used only in emergencies) is to be efficacious, it must be applied promptly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that children in open-air nursery schools seldom get measles, and, if they do, they never die?

STERILISATION.

Mr. MITCHESON: 32.
(for Mr. POTTER) asked the Home Secretary if a recent inquest on a woman who died after an operation for sterilisation has been brought to his attention; and if he will give instructions that a record of any such happenings shall be kept in the Home Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest in this case. I have no means of securing a record of such occurrences unless death results in circumstances which require a report to be made to the coroner; and I do not think that any public interest would be served by my asking coroners to tabulate separately such cases as may be reported to them.

Mr. MITCHESON: 55.
(for Mr. POTTER) asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a recent inquest on a woman after an operation for sterilisation; and if he will take steps to
obtain statistics of the frequency with which such operations are performed in hospitals subject to his inspection?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir, I have seen a newspaper report on the inquest referred to, in which the verdict recorded that sterilisation had been medically advised owing to the physical incapacity of the patient to withstand the risks she would incur in undergoing confinement. I do not think it would be useful to attempt to collect statistics of such cases.

SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT (SANITARY INSPECTOR).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 48.
(for Major MILNER) asked the Minister of Health whether, before approving the proposal of the urban district council of Sandown-Shanklin (Isle of Wight) to appoint a fully qualified whole-time sanitary inspector at a commencing salary of £175 per annum, rising by two annual increments of £12 10s. to a maximum of £200 per annum, he will intimate that the salary offered is insufficient remuneration for the services of an experienced and properly qualified sanitary inspector, seeing that the lowest salary at present paid for qualified whole-time sanitary inspectors in the Isle of Wight is £295 per annum?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have already approved the proposal to which the hon. Member refers, the terms of which are more favourable to the officer than those originally contemplated by the Council. Before approving the proposal consideration was given to the question whether the salary offered was sufficient to secure and retain the services of an efficient officer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this small salary for an experienced and efficient officer representative of salaries paid for similar duties throughout Great Britain?

Sir H. YOUNG: In order to give a full reply, I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE, SHOREDITCH.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 36.
asked the Minister of Health when the actual work in connection with slum clearance in Shore-ditch will be started; how many new homes will be supplied; and what rents will be charged?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am about to confirm an Order made by the London County Council under the Act of 1930 for the compulsory purchase of the Drysdale Street area. The Council have already agreed terms for the purchase of some of the properties in the area and preparatory work on a rehousing site has been begun. In connection with this and other clearances to be undertaken in Shoreditch the Borough Council will provide rehousing accommodation for 400 persons and the County Council about 2,000 new dwellings. The weekly rents which must comply with the statute will, it is understood, be from 6s. upwards, exclusive of rates, according to the number of rooms, the type and the location of the dwellings. The Ware Street area in this Borough is being cleared under legislation preceding the Act of 1930. The rehousing accommodation for this area is on the point of completion.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MITCHESON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses now in course of construction compared with the number at the same time last year and in 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: The number of State-assisted houses in course of construction in England and Wales at the 31st October, 1933, was 33,325. The corresponding figures for the same dates in 1932 and 1931 were 29,420 and 45,897 respectively. Similar information is not available as to houses under construction without State assistance, but the number of such houses completed during the year ended 30th September last was greatly in excess of that in either of the two previous years.

BUILDING FACILITIES.

Mr. JOEL: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the general result of the conferences between the local authorities and local builders to explain to them the facilities available under the Housing Act in accordance with the suggestion contained in his recent circular; and whether in the case of Dudley there was any practical outcome?

Sir H. YOUNG: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green North-East (Major Nathan) on the 23rd November. With regard to the second part of the question, the reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY, DURHAM.

Mr. McKEAG: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state how long the inquiry into the proposed re-arrangement of districts in Durham County is expected to last; what the cost of this inquiry is estimated to amount to; and by whom such cost will be borne?

Sir H. YOUNG: The inspector has allotted 17 days for the inquiry into the county council's proposals, which are far-reaching, but I am not able to say whether the inquiry will take less or more time, nor can I say what is likely to be the total cost of it. The Ministry's costs in connection with it, which will be relatively small, will be borne by the county council; the other costs will be borne by the several authorities which incur them.

Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sum of £100,000 has been mentioned as the likely total cost of this inquiry, and will he, in view of the large amount that will in any case be involved, consider the advisability of making some direct representations to those concerned with a view to keeping the costs down to a minimum?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have not heard any such estimate. The reduction of the costs to a minimum is a point to be borne in mind.

Mr. LAWSON: Who will receive the costs? Is it not the lawyers?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL TRUST (DONORS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of devising some form of public recognition for those persons who present to the National Trust, for permanent preservation by the nation, places of natural scenic beauty?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am sure that everyone will applaud, as I do, the public spirit of those who preserve places of natural beauty for the perpetual enjoyment of the public. I doubt whether it would be wise or graceful to try and stereotype any form of public approbation, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make I will certainly consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER - LAMPSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be able to give an opportunity for the discussion of the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green in regard to the future of the League of Nations—

["That, in view of the attitude of several of the great Powers towards the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government would be well advised, in the interests of the League, to formulate their policy regarding its future without delay."]

The PRIME MINISTER: A Debate such as my right hon. Friend desires would not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be in the public interest at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (PUBLIC WORKS).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether a communication has yet been received from the International Labour Office recommending that the committee which the bureau of the world monetary and economic conference decided to set up to study the question of public works and other means of alleviating unemployment should be appointed and convened as early as possible; and what action he proposes to take?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the Governing body of the International Labour Office passed a resolution in this sense during October. My hon. Friend will be aware that work is being continued in certain directions, but many of the subjects reveal a close interdependence and we are awaiting suitable conditions for a general resumption of work. I do not feel that meantime this particular subject can be pursued advantageously apart from the general programme.

Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand that the Government do intend at the appropriate moment to take the initiative in regard to getting this Committee together?

The PRIME MINISTER: I had a little difficulty in answering my hon. Friend's question as to whether it was addressed to me as Prime Minister and Leader of
the House or as President of the International Conference. I can assure him that in the latter capacity I am watching every opportunity of setting things going.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUAL'S TREATMENT, GUILDFORD.

Mr. THORNE: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has called for a report in connection with the assault on a casual labourer by the labour master and his assistant at the Warren Road casual ward, Guildford; and what action he intends to take in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I cannot state what action on my part may be necessary until I have considered the report.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. MANDER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular to public assistance committees suggesting that the question of making an extra allowance to children at Christmas time should be considered by them?

Sir H. YOUNG: Public assistance authorities are aware of their powers, under Article 19 of the Public Assistance Order, 1930, to incur reasonable expenditure on special allowances at Christmas time, and I do not think there is any need for a Circular.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the admitted inadequacy of the allowances to these children, does the right hon. Gentleman not think this would be a very appropriate Christmas present? Can he not take some action in the matter?

Viscountess ASTOR: Why not have open-air nursery schools?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no doubt that the question and answer will secure the attention which the hon. Member desires.

WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons within the county borough of West Ham in receipt of public assistance for the periods ended September, 1930, 1931,
1932, and 1933, giving men and women separately; and whether he will give the corresponding figures for the same periods for domiciliary treatment?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the

West Ham County Borough.


—
Institutional Relief.
Domiciliary Belief.


Total number of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of institutional poor relief on the last Saturday in the month, including patients in mental hospitals.
Average number of men, women and children in receipt of domiciliary relief during the mouth.


Men.
Women.
Children.


September, 1930
…
2,285
2,033
3,217
3,093


September, 1931
…
2,216
2,513
3,925
4,094


September, 1932
…
2,288
4,022
5,117
6.177


September, 1933
…
2,339
4,686
5,604
6,974


Separate figures for men, women and children in receipt of institutional relief are obtained only once a year, namely, on the 1st January.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to how many theatres, within a 20-miles radius of London, were in existence before the imposition of the Entertainments Duty; how many are paying Entertainments Duty now; and how much this taxation amounted to in each year since its inception?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have made inquiries about this matter but I regret that the information which my hon. and gallant Friend desires is not available.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I ask for an answer to the last part of the question, or shall I put it again?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer the last part because the returns of the duty in the earlier years have been destroyed.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic attention to the representations which have been made by the industry affected as to the results of this tax?

Mr. WHYTE: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre,
hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the desired particulars so far as they are available.

which has no capital charges, after paying Entertainments Duty amounting to £4,281 5s., made on the last year of operation a net loss of £44 14s. 7d.; and whether, in view of the educational services performed by this theatre, he will investigate the incidence of the Entertainments Duty as it applies to such places?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I note the information given by my hon. Friend and I can assure him that when the incidence of the Entertainments Duty, in common with other duties, is brought under review in connection with the forthcoming Budget the considerations to which he has drawn attention will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (GRANT).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those areas whose poor rate has now increased to distressed-area level will be eligible for a share in the £300,000 grant?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The concession to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers only applies to those authorities who are receiving a grant in the current year out of the Vote for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas. My hon. and gallant Friend will appre-
ciate no doubt that if the expenditure on the able-bodied unemployed in any area would, apart from the Bill, have been more than in the standard year, the relief to that area under the Bill will be correspondingly increased.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any announcement with regard to the renewal of grants for land drainage in England; and, further, is he aware that grants are still being made under this heading in Scotland?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Grants under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act are already available though limited at present to cases of the gravest emergency. The question of making increased provision for land drainage grants will be considered, as soon as financial circumstances permit. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that there is every likelihood of there being money available for drainage purposes?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR, SUBSIDY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the £37,440,000 subsidy and revenue abatement granted to the beet-sugar industry was received by producers of beet-sugar; and what proportion went to beet-sugar factory owners?

Mr. ELLIOT: The subsidy is paid, and the revenue abatement is granted, to manufacturers of sugar produced from home-grown beets. The extent to which the grower participates in this assistance is determined by the price he receives for his beets. Any apportionment of the figure of £37,440,000 between factories and growers would be highly speculative, since, to arrive at the growers' share, it would be necessary to estimate what would have been the beet price in each year of the subsidy period had no assistance been afforded to the home-grown sugar industry. I regret, therefore, I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires. I would add,
however, that during the nine years 1924-25 to 1932-33 the total sum paid for beets amounted to 59 per cent. of the income derived by the factory companies from all beet products, after deducting selling expenses and Excise duty, but including subsidy and revenue abatement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask what was the original capital of the beet-sugar factories, what their reserves are now, and what dividends are paid?

Mr. ELLIOT: Not without notice.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the subsidy paid is more than double the amount of the wages paid to the workmen?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SURPLUS MILK.

Sir PERCY HURD: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the expected surplus of liquid milk in the spring, he will take steps to make part of this surplus available for schools and welfare centres instead of allowing it to endanger the success of the milk-marketing scheme by passing milk into manufacture at prices unremunerative to the producer?

Mr. ELLIOT: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the National Milk Publicity Council already does much useful work in the direction of extending the consumption of milk in schools. I am not clear what further steps my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir P. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman a fund which would assist a further extension of this excellent method?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I have no fund.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with the Board of Education so that if there is a surplus local education authorities may get hold of this milk and give it to the children in the schools?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will take note of the suggestion.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask whether, in order to deal with the expected surplus of milk in the spring,
the right hon. Gentleman will ask the board to start a scheme for the sale of 18 per cent. cream as recommended in the Milk Council's report and by other dairy manufacturers at the present time?

LIVESTOCK PEICES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the state of emergency now existing with regard to the inadequate prices for livestock in this country, he will make arrangements to call an early conference of producers in this country and the marketing Dominions with the object of deciding what further steps are necessary to deal with the situation?

Mr. ELLIOT: No. Sir. My hon. Friend will appreciate that His Majesty's Government could not take steps to get in touch direct with Dominion producers. Such approach could only be made

Estimated average per caput consumption of liquid milk in certain countries


Country.
Year.
Estimated consumption per head.


Per day.
Per annum.







Pints.
Gallons.


(a)
Great Britain
…
…
1931
. 33 to . 4
15. 1 to 18. 3


(b)
Sweden
…
…
1924
1. 48
67. 5


(c)
Canada
…
…
1922
. 6
27. 3


(b)
United States of America
…
…
1925
1. 0
45. 6


(c)
1926
1. 2
55. 3


(b)
Germany (Berlin)
…
…
1923
. 30
13. 7


(b)
France
…
…
1924
. 33
15. 1


(c)
Italy
…
…
1913
. 1
4. 2


(a) From the report of the Reorganisation Commission for Milk (Ministry's
Economic Series No. 38), paragraph 27, pages 33-35 of which deal with the consumption of liquid
milk in Great Britain.


 (b) From estimates published in the report on the Fluid Milk Market in
England and Wales (Ministry's Economic Series No. 16, page 131).


 (c) From estimates published in "A Handbook of Dairy Statistics"(U.S. Department of Agriculture), 1928.

ACCREDITED MILK PRODUCERS.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Milk Commission as regards accredited herds; whether he has considered making regulations to deal with that matter; and what representations have been made to him by the Milk Marketing Board on this subject?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Milk Marketing Board is now considering the recommendations of the Milk (Reorganisation Commission on the subject
through the Governments of the Dominions concerned.

MILK CONSUMPTION.

Mr. PETHERICK: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the consumption of liquid milk per head of the population for the year 1931 or 1932 in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, the United States of America, Germany, France, and Italy, respectively?

Mr. ELLIOT: The information I have relating to the per caput consumption of milk is not, I am afraid, of a very definite character. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statistical table giving the latest information available for each country specified in my hon. Friend's question and showing the source from which the information has been obtained.

Following is the statistical table:

of a roll of accredited producers. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that several of the matters discussed by the commission in that part of their report are also being examined by the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. I have received no representations from the Milk Marketing Board on this subject.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is much better for the people to have a scheme producing safe milk than a scheme bolstering up dirty producers?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be as well to use the Empire Marketing Board's hoardings, which are now vacant, and urge people to drink more milk?

Mr. ELLIOT: That scarcely arises out of the question.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Minister contemplates steps for the prohibition of the kind of milk which killed 8,000 people last year?

FOODSTUFFS (CONSUMPTION).

Sir JOHN POWER: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the value of the main staple foodstuffs consumed

—
Estimated Values.
Proportion of Total Supply—Home Production.


Home Production.
Total Supply.






£ million.
£ million.
Per cent.


Wheat Flour
…
…
…
10. 6 (a)
70. 9
15. 0


Meat
…
…
…
98. 6
222. 5
44. 3


Poultry and Eggs
…
…
…
22. 2
44. 6
49.8


Dairy Produce
…
…
…
62. 5
128. 4
48.7


Potatoes, other vegetables and raw fruit.
39. 8
63. 8
62.4



Total
…
…
233. 7
530. 2
44. 1


(a) Flour made from home-grown wheat only.

MILK PRODUCTION.

Mr. GUY: 64.
(for Mr. LIDDALL) asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the estimated milk production of England and Wales in the months of July, 1932, August, 1932, July, 1933, and August, 1933, respectively?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret the information desired is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ITALY.

Mr. CLARRY: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates the completion of a trade agreement with Italy; and whether the question of coal supplies from Monmouthshire is receiving consideration in his negotiations?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): With regard to the first part of the question, I am not in a position to make a state-
in the United Kingdom during the year 1932; and what proportion of such value was represented by home production?.

Mr. ELLIOT: The latest available figures are contained in the Report of the Agricultural Output and Food Supplies of Great Britain published in 1929 and are based on the period 1924-1927. An extract from this report showing in respect of the various foodstuffs normally produced in Great Britain the estimated values of home production and of total supplies, and showing also the proportion of home production to total supplies is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the extract:

ment. The question of securing improved outlets for Welsh and Monmouth coal in foreign markets is, however, being kept in view.

Mr. CLARRY: Can the hon. and gallant Member give any reason why large contracts usually placed by parties interested in the consumption of Welsh and Monmouthshire coal about this time of the year are being held up at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No. I can only say in answer to the hon. Member that this matter is being kept in view.

Mr. STOREY: Can the hon. and gallant Member assure the House that the shipping subsidy paid by Italy will be considered in these negotiations?

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS: TAXATION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make any further statement with regard to the surtax imposed on British goods entering France?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have at present nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) on the 12th December.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the hon. and gallant Member be able to make a statement before the House rises?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot undertake to do that, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement very shortly.

FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCIES.

Mr. DORAN: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to seek further legislative powers to deal with the increasing number of cases of fraudulent bankruptcy by firms, mainly alien in name, who have begun trading operations on altogether insufficient capital?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My information does not enable me to accept the implications contained in my hon. Friend's question, and I have no reason to think that the provisions of the existing law are inadequate to deal with fraudulent bankruptcies where satisfactory evidence is forthcoming.

Mr. DORAN: This question was originally addressed to the Attorney-General. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that there are operating in this country 3,000 fraudulent bankrupts, who are mainly alien Jews, and is he going to take any action to protect the British trader against these economic vultures who are picking the flesh—[Interruption]. May I have an answer to my question? view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is not capable of giving one, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will instruct the governors of the various Crown Colonies and territories to make an analysis of the effects of Japanese competition upon our own goods in their respective areas and to forward the information thus obtained to this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am in frequent correspondence with Colonial administrations on this matter, and I am satisfied that adequate information is available in the special reports on particular aspects of it which are made to me by Governors whenever necessary and in the trade returns, which I have arranged shall in future show in all cases the true country of origin of imports, so far as it is ascertainable. Special investigations are therefore, I think, unnecessary and could not be expected to produce sufficient additional information to justify the labour and expense involved.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: What is my right hon. Friend proposing to do with regard to the information that he has?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not seem to arise from the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir B. FALLE: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the forcing of Konversionskasse scrip upon British investors in respect of the defaulted obligations of German public authorities; and what steps the British Government proposes to take to protest against the preferential treatment of scrip accorded to Switzerland and Holland to the detriment of British subjects, while there is a remedy available in the Anglo-German trade balance and also in the use of an Anglo-German clearing-house system for imports and exports?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) on the 13th November last. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is receiving the closest consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under
what ordinance Transjordanians are allowed to enter Palestine without control; and what directions the High Commissioner has given as to the admission of such immigrants without passports, in view of the provisions of the Immigration Ordinance, No. 38, of 1933, Section 5 (1) (h)?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is Section 4 (2) of the Palestine Immigration Ordinance, 1933, which provides that persons habitually resident in Transjordan may, unless the High Commissioner shall otherwise direct, enter Palestine direct from Transjordan although they are not in possession of passports or other similar documents. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that the general provision of Section 5 (1) (h) must be read as excluding from its operation the cases which have been provided for by the special provision of Section 4 (2).

Oral Answers to Questions — TAILORS' DISPUTE, BETHNAL GREEN.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
(for Major MILNER) asked the Minister of Labour whether it is with his authority that the Employment Exchanges in the London area have been circularised to the effect that the dispute in which members of the Tailors and Garment Makers' Union are concerned in Bethnal Green Road, E.2, is at an end ; and if he is aware that in consequence thereof applicants are being sent to apply for work, whereas the dispute still continues?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The procedure laid down for such cases by the Regulations is that the trade union may file a statement at the local exchange that there is a strike or lock-out in existence, whereupon the statement together with any counter-statement by the employer is made known to any person to whom vacancies with that employer are notified by any exchange. No such statement has been filed in this case by the union and the action taken by the exchanges was based on notification from the employer, first that there was a strike at his works and subsequently that he was fully staffed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the secretary of the trade union did write to the Employment Exchange and received no reply? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he might very well look into the case?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to say that just before I came here I heard that both sides have now got into communication, and that there is every possibility of a reference to the joint machinery of the industry. Therefore, it is better that I should say nothing more now.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (COURT ATTENDANCE).

Mr. MITCHESON: 27.
asked the Home Secretary the approximate daily average of Metropolitan police officers in attendance at police courts as witnesses; and what percentage of the total cases at such courts relate to motor vehicle offences other than those involving or calculated to involve injury to persons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The best available information is the result of a special investigation in respect of the month of March, 1932. It was then found that an average of 350 members of the force attended court each day, about 140 of them being engaged in connection with traffic offences of all kinds. Arrangements have since been made to reduce the time of absence from other duty involved by attendance at court.

Oral Answers to Questions — OXFORD PRISON (WARDERS DISMISSAL).

Brigadier-General NATION: 28.
(for Sir GIFFORD FOX) asked the Home Secretary whether an appeal has been lodged by officers Burt and Lloyd, who were recently dismissed from His Majesty's Prison, Oxford, following the escape of the prisoner, James Sullivan; and, if so, what action he has taken thereon?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I have received an appeal from these officers; but I regret that, after full inquiry, I can find no grounds for reconsidering the decision to dismiss them. They have been dismissed, not because they were held responsible for the escape of the prisoner, but because they failed to re-
port his absence from his cell at breakfast time and in the course of the inquiry which followed maintained, contrary to the facts, that he was in his cell at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE DERIVED INCOMES

Mr. GUY: 57.
(for Mr. LIDDALL) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of persons who derive their incomes, in whole or in part, from the National Exchequer; what number of these are engaged in civil occupations; and what number in the Defence Forces?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the very comprehensive information for which my hon. Friend asks is not immediately available, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. My hon. Friend will, however, find information relating to the civil staffs of Government Departments in Command Paper 4351, of which I am sending him a copy, and information as to the members of the Defence Forces in the respective Votes A of the three Defence Service Department Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSIZES (LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER).

Sir J. HASLAM: 72.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the difficulties caused to Manchester jurors, who have to leave their businesses and their homes for lengthy periods owing to the congestion caused by cases being repeatedly transferred from the Liverpool to the Manchester assizes, he will make inquiries into the reason for the transferences, with a view of putting an end to the practice?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I regret that during the assizes now proceeding an exceptional burden has been thrown upon the Manchester jurors. I understand that an extra week will be allowed for next Liverpool assizes in the hope of relieving Manchester jurors of Liverpool cases.

Mr. LOGAN: In view of the expense incurred by Liverpool people who, under the present system have to travel to Manchester, is it not possible to make some arrangement for the Liverpool assizes to end at Liverpool?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. Member will see from the answer, the giving of an extra week at Liverool will, we hope, meet the difficulty referred to in the question.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the new arrangement meet the protest of the Manchester jurors in this connection? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Manchester jurors sent a protest to the judge on account of being kept so long in court?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the arrangement referred to in the answer meets the difficulty referred to in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 74.
asked President of the Board of Trade if he has taken, or intends to take, any further steps to minimise the injury caused to fish and bird life and to the amenities of seaside resorts by the refuse oil discharged from oil-burning vessels?

Dr. BURGIN: The discharge of oil within the territorial waters of this country is prohibited under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922. Further steps are dependent on international action, as to which I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Birkenhead East on the 5th December, to which I can add nothing.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is international action being pressed forward in this matter, as meanwhile, fish and bird life is being seriously hurt?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. GIBSON: Is it not possible for something to be done by our Government, apart from international action, to deal with this matter round our own coast?

Dr. BURGIN: The usual suggestion is that British ships should be fitted with separators. We do not feel disposed to make a compulsory order putting an extra burden on British shipping, if the whole result of doing so can be nullified by foreign shipping to which our rules do not apply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week; and also to state how far it is proposed to go to-day in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may, I will answer the second question first. The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Newfoundland Bill and the Committee stage of the amended Unemployment Money Resolution. I venture to remind the House that a similar Money Resolution was very fully discussed on Monday and, for that reason, I hope that the amended Resolution will not require any long Debate to-day. It is also proposed to consider Motions approving the Potatoes and Hops Marketing Schemes, which are exempted business.
As regards the business for next week, it is proposed to take the following:
Monday: Newfoundland Bill, concluding stages. Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, Second Reading; Unemployment Money Resolution, Report stage.
Tuesday: Motion to set up a time-table for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Unemployment Bill. Afterwards, if there is time, the Unemployment Bill will be considered in Committee.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
It is proposed to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday, 21st December, and the Adjournment will be until Monday, 29th January, 1934.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the large number of Amendments which are down for the Newfoundland Bill and also to the likelihood of considerable debate on the Unemployment Money Resolution and ask him whether it will not involve a very late sitting to-night if, in addition to those Orders, we are to take the Motions on the two Marketing Schemes. Would it not be possible to take those Motions on Tuesday of next week instead of trying to start the Committee stage of the Unemployment Bill on that day? If we start the Committee Stage on that
day, there will be a considerable break during the Christmas holiday before it can be resumed, and it will not be possible to make any considerable progress with the Bill on Tuesday.

The PRIME MINISTER: We must get the first two Orders which I have announced for to-day. The others will be subject to the course of business. We have no intention of asking the House to sit unreasonably late, but, as I have said, we must get the first two Orders. The business for Tuesday next could be arranged. If the Unemployment Bill goes into Committee before the Adjournment on Tuesday, then the discussion in Committee on that day would not, I understand, come under the time-table but would be in the nature of an extra opportunity for hon. Members.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why it is proposed to set up a time-table on the Unemployment Bill? There has been no delay in this matter except the delay caused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer having estimated wrongly the desires of the local authorities. Presumably, the time-table is not being imposed because there is any danger that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obstruct the Measure. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, therefore, why the Government propose to impose a time-table when there has been no undue delay, and why they make this proposal before we have entered on the Committee stage of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: As far as the Government are concerned it is not their intention to impose this time-table as a punishment. They propose to do so in the interests of business. It would be perfectly absurd if we were to give two or three days for a sort of trial run in Committee, and the hon. Member knows quite as well as we know that some resort will have to be made to an arrangement by which the Bill as a whole can be properly discussed. As I have already explained, the Government think it better to begin in a businesslike way with the discussion of this Bill in Committee and that is why they propose to set up this time-table preparatory to the Committee stage.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: If it is necessary to have a time-table imposed on the House, will not some effort be made to make arrangements so that it will be an agreed time-table?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, hon. Members know quite well that these time-tables are only made up after consultation. It has been considered time and time again, and by myself more than once, whether it would not be possible to get some sort of independent authority to set up these timetables, but the Government have always been perfectly accommodating and quite fair in their allocation of time, and we are proposing to do this one again in the old way.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's experience of time-tables on the Finance Bill, when he was Prime Minister before, indicate that they acted very unfairly to both the Opposition and the supporters of the Government? We had many occasions when we were in Opposition trying to get replies from Ministers who merely stayed outside and refused to give answers. On the other hand, a great number of supporters of the Government, as hon. Members below the Gangway will remember, frequently wanted to make their contributions to the Debate and were unable to do so. Would it not be much more satisfactory to start this Bill in the ordinary way and see how we get along, instead of imposing a time-table from the outset?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is a master of all methods of procedure, and he will remember that perhaps the most unsatisfactory way of doing business is one form or another of closure by compartments, and that in a long Bill like this that remedy would have ultimately to be resorted to. There is no method, perhaps, which is perfectly satisfactory, but on the whole every Government which has tried to run a big Bill through the House has come to the conclusion that in present circumstances the fairest method is a time-table of

which full notice has been given and about which negotiation has taken place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that possibly no Bill entails so much human consideration in every line of it as this Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the matter, even if it meant bringing the House back a little earlier? Does he not see that on a timetable the Government may allocate the time, but the House of Commons has to discuss it, and frequently the Government give a reason which they and the House do not consider in the same light? In view of the fact also that he has had no evidence of undue delay, could he not reconsider the matter in the light of these circumstances?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the point which my hon. Friend raises is as to how the compartments should be arranged, and I should be very glad if he would address me on that subject on Tuesday, when I shall move the timetable.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the real reason for this time-table the fact that the Government want as little discussion as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member makes that suggestion, as he himself was party to a similar decision on the part of the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. LAWSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman rely upon his huge majority and give a little fair play to a small Opposition?

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister. "]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 47.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brocklebank, C E. R.


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bernays, Robert
Brown, Brig.-G en. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Betterton. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Blindell. James
Burghley, Lord


Astor. Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Borodale, Viscount
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boulton. W. W.
Burnett, John George


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Butler, Richard Austen


Baldwin. Rt Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Barton. Capt. Basil Kelsey
Boyce, H. Leslie
Calne. G. R. Hall-


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Carver, Major William H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Holdsworth. Herbert
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ray, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Hornby, Frank
Reid, Capt. A, Cunningham-


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Cant. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cheriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rickards, George William


Christle, James Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Robinson. John Roland


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Sir Percy
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Ronald D.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Iveagh, Countess of
Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conant, R. J. E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cook, Thomas A.
Jamieson, Douglas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cooke, Douglas
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sanderson. Sir Frank Barnard


Cranberne, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Scone, Lord


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knight. Holford
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. w.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Davies, Mal. Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Levy, Thomas
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somerville. Annesley A. (Windsor)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Doran, Edward
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Duggan, Hubert John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Storey, Samuel


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Dunglass, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Edge, Sir William
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Summersby, Charles H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampton
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elmley, Viscount
McKeag, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thompson, Luke


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Magnay, Thomas
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Train, John


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tree, Ronald


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meller, Sir Richard James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward. Irene Mary 8ewlck (Wallsend)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd a Chisw'k)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Watt. Captain George Steven H.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rld, N.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Weymouth, Viscount


Graves, Marjorie
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wills. Wilfrid D.


Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harbord, Arthur
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hartington, Marquess of
Pike, Cecil F.



Hartland, George A.
Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pybus, Percy John



Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Buchanan, George
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Banfield, John William
Cove, William G.
Edwards, Charles


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Curry, A. C.
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.




Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.
White, Henry Graham


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir William
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Parkinson, John Allen
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Res, Walter Russell
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. sir H. (Darwen)



Logan, David Gilbert
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—Public Works Facilities Scheme (Witney Urban District Council) Bill, with Amendments.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (WITNEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NEWFOUNDLAND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

4.5 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Let me call the attention of the Committee, before we proceed with this Bill, to the fact that the Bill contains in a Schedule a copy of an Act of the Newfoundland Legislature. As printed there are a number of trifling errors in that Schedule. The Public Bill Office and I myself have gone through these very carefully, and I am prepared to assure the Committee that those corrections, which will be made as printers' corrections, are not errors of substance of any kind whatever. As an example, I may perhaps mention that a large majority of them consist of the omission of the word "the," as, for instance, "loan and interest thereon" instead of "loan and the interest thereon." I thought it was only right that as these corrections are very numerous, the fact should be mentioned to the Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to issue Letters Patent providing for the administration of Newfoundland, and provision as to revocation and amendment thereof.)

4.6 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "revoke," and to insert:
suspend for a period not exceeding three years.
I am sure that the Committee is obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for the statement you have made, and we have no wish to take any objection to the corrected form of words in the Schedule. With regard to the Amendment which I beg to move, when one looks through the findings in the report of the Royal Commission, one of the things which, I think, will strike anybody is their insistence upon the temporary modification of the constitution of Newfoundland. Looking at page 223, which is the Summary of Recommendations, under the heading "Main Recommendation" it will be seen that they say in paragraph (2):
On the other hand, measures designed to alleviate the present burden of public in-
debtedness would not, in themselves, provide a solution of the Island's difficulties, since those difficulties are largely due to the reckless waste and extravagance, and to the absence of constructive and efficient administration, engendered by a political system which for a generation has been abused and exploited for personal or party ends.
The "party," of course, being the Conservative and Liberal parties of Newfoundland.
A complementary requirement, therefore, to measures of financial relief is that the present form of government should be temporarily modified in such a way as would serve not merely to check the unfortunate tendencies to which the present system has given rise but also to promote the rehabilitation of the Island on sound principles.
Then, again, if one looks at page 192, where the rather fuller summary occurs under Chapter IX, "A Joint Plan of Reconstruction," it says:
A complementary requirement therefore to measures of financial relief is that the present form of government should be temporarily modified in such a way as would serve not merely to check the unfortunate tendencies to which the present system has given rise, but also to promote the rehabilitation of the Island on sound principles.
I need not refer the Committee to other passages where the same insistence is made upon the temporary suspension of the present Constitution of the Government of Newfoundland. Apart altogether from the general merits, which, of course can be discussed on other Amendments, but not on this one, we believe that it is very important, from a psychological point of view, if not also from the practical point of view, that the word "revoke" should not occur in this Bill, that it should be made quite clear that this is only a suspension and not a revocation. The word "revoke" necessarily implies a final, definite, conclusive action which puts out of operation permanently the present constitution of Newfoundland, and some new constitution will have to be made at the time when the Letters Patent proposed to be set up under this Clause come to the end of their useful period. We believe that the idea that the people of Newfoundland would then revert to full self-government after merely a suspensory period, is the idea that we should seek to put into their minds, because one of the great difficulties, as I see it, of
this method of dealing with Newfoundland, is that we are anxious that they should become more politically conscious, more able as a people to guide their own destinies.
We are, as a matter of fact, taking a step here which is going to put them completely out of touch with all methods of democratic Government. There is not in Newfoundland what we might have in this country if the central government were suspended. There is not even local government. There is no means by which the people of Newfoundland will get any experience whatsoever of any administration or any political control. Therefore, it is more important than ever, in our view, that they should have held out to them a fairly speedy prospect of the constitution which is being suspended coming back into full force. It is only if they see that in front of them as a definite object at which to aim, a right, as it were, that after a certain period of time it should come back automatically, unless, of course, circumstances are such that this House passes some fresh legislation; otherwise they may lose all hope of ever themselves partaking in their own political government. If they do that, then, indeed, the case of Newfoundland will be hopeless, because we shall not be educating the people to a political consciousness, but shall be doing precisely the opposite—dulling their political consciousness, and putting them in a position in which it will not be easier and easier for them to conduct their own Government, but more and more difficult to do so.
It may be said that there is not much difference between revocation and suspension. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the people have the Act put before them, it will make a great psychological difference whether they think it is a final Act for ever abolishing their constitution, as it is under Clause 1, with the hope that a new constitution may be re-enacted in the same sort of form as the present one, or whether you say, "Here you are in a time of difficulty. We are going to suspend your constitution only for a certain time, and when that time has expired you will, as a right, get your constitution back again with all its full democratic powers." I do, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentle-
man to accept this Amendment for the sake of the people of Newfoundland, and for the sake of their better opportunity of political development.

4.14 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am quite sure the whole Committee will agree with the general sentiment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. In substance, he said that, whatever our views of this Bill may be, do not let us destroy in the minds of the Newfoundland people the hope of once again attaining self-government, and, in order to emphasise that, he said that if we accept this Amendment limiting the period to three years, that in itself would give a hope to those people that in three years they would once again attain self-government. I think that is a fair statement both of the arguments put forward and the object of the Amendment. I said on Second Reading, and I say now, that no Member of the Government, least of all myself, could be in any way happy about this Bill. No one can pretend for a moment that it is a Bill which any Government could welcome, and it is common property, as has been repeatedly stated, that it is only because of the very desperate nature of the circumstances in this Dominion that we are driven to this position. That being so, I associate myself absolutely with the wish not to destroy in any way the anxiety and the desire of the people themselves once again to take their full share in the responsibility of government. To put a period of three years in the Bill—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Never mind about the three years.

Mr. THOMAS: But even to insert a period in the Bill may, in my judgment, easily have the very opposite effect. That is a matter of opinion, and I will endeavour to show why it may have that effect. The one feature of this Report that disturbs everybody is the way in which corruption and misgovernment have been allowed to prevail. I do not want to condemn the innocent people who have been exploited. I could say much of my own personal view about those who are responsible for the corruption, but I am anxious to give those
people who have never had a real chance a new chance. I believe that we shall only do that by showing them that there can be better government, and better and cleaner administration, and that there will be people who are prepared to make every personal sacrifice to pull the Dominion through again. I am not one of those who believe that all hope for Newfoundland is gone. I believe there are great potentialities in the island, and that if we can only get the right conditions and the spirit of our own Civil Service in the administration of the island the people themselves will be the first to appreciate our efforts.
Does not my hon. and learned Friend attach importance to this? We know something of the politicians in Newfoundland; we know how one set has exploited the others, and so on. I need not elaborate it because we all know it, but has not the hon. and learned Gentleman considered that if we put a period of years in this Bill, the first thing that would happen would be that the same politicians would so exploit the situation, so destroy confidence and hope, that they would be able to say to the people, "Do not do what these people want because in two or three or four years the whole thing will be altered again and you will be all right." [Interruption] I do not know what the object of the interruption is. I am trying to met fairly and seriously the case put by the official Opposition. I think that they mean it seriously, and I am dealing with it in that spirit. I repeat that, if we are concerned with the future government of this island, nothing would be more fatal than to convey the idea that if the people would only wait for a given period everything would be altered.
"Temporary" is written all over this Bill, because we believe it is to be a temporary Measure. But I have no hesitation in saying that it will depend upon the Commissioners whom we send out, and it will depend also upon the economic circumstances, which may or may not change. We hope that they will change. It will depend upon the efficiency that is brought into the administration. We believe that this should be a temporary Measure, and we say to the Newfoundland people: "It is up to you to cooperate with us. We have undertaken a great liability. The British people are
only anxious to help you, and we believe that this is the way to help." For all these reasons, we prefer that there should be no fixed date for the change to take place, but rather that we should render all the co-operation we can in order to make the date as short as possible.

4.21 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: No real party issue is involved in this Bill. In fact, there is much with which many of us agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not, therefore, for party reasons that I profoundly disagree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). We have to face what has happened in Newfoundland. Democratic institutions have completely broken down. I understand that the franchise of Newfoundland is on a very full and free basis, and the number of people who have votes is in proportion at least as large as that in this country. The system has absolutely broken down. I am not going to argue against democracy. I do not believe that such a condition of affairs could have occurred in this country or France or a few other European countries. In this country the voters can always get rid of any Government or individual with whom they disagree, and I do not believe that such a condition of affairs as has arisen in Newfoundland could have arisen here. But there are special reasons on the other side of the Atlantic why such things happen.
What has happened in Newfoundland is only on a small scale what is happening in other countries on the North and South American continents. Can' the great body of electors in New York and Chicago get the sort of government they want through the agency of the ballot box? Everybody knows that they cannot. Ask any American Labour man if he has much faith in the efficacy of the ballot box to produce the conditions in which he believes. The whole system has completely broken down in Newfoundland as, in fact, it has broken down in many parts of the North American continent. Newfoundland being a much poorer country, the results of corruption and graft are more apparent than in New York and Chicago. We must not be too mealy-mouthed about democracy. Let us face the facts and not be too ready to pay tribute to it after what has happened there. What is the use of saying
that we should adopt the three-year period? I rather agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in preferring the word "suspend."

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is the whole point.

Earl WINTERTON: But the hon. and learned Gentleman put a period in his Amendment. That is what I object to. He quoted very fairly from the report of the Newfoundland Commission, and it is true that he was able to show that the use of the word "temporary" was frequent in that report, but "temporary" is like Mesopotamia; it is a blessed word and may be abused. Do not let us put in three years, for that is a short time in the history of a country. I hear from the highest source connected with Newfoundland that any student of events in that country will tell you that should it happen that this Bill failed to get through and the whole proposal fell to the ground, and should the British Government not be able to carry out what it intends to carry out; and if in the due course of events another general election took place in Newfoundland, although the people of Newfoundland strongly support these proposals, the old gang would come back as they have done again and again in the past, and all the old scandals would be repeated. The conditions in the island are connected with the monstrous truck system by which the fishermen and workers are ground down—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Also the property qualification.

Earl WINTERTON: I admit that there are many defective points in the Constitution. The object which the Opposition have in view is one with which we can sympathise, for these people should not be allowed to believe that this is going to be a permanent destruction of their Constitution. I do not believe, however, that that would best be attained by an Amendment of this kind, and I therefore agree with the Secretary of State. I am glad that he spoke with such vigour on this subject, because the people of Newfoundland should be in no doubt of the mind of the Government in this regard.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot see what the answer is to the hon. and learned
Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I listened to the speech of the Dominions Secretary for an answer, and I could not see that he answered the point at all. The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to open up a discussion on wider issues. I wish sometimes that Members of the Government in charge of Bills would learn to confine themselves to the subject at issue. We are not discussing graft on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who is a man for whom I have a personal regard for his integrity, capacity and independence, flung about charges of corruption and graft, and I cannot understand why. These are serious charges to make against men.

Earl WINTERTON: They are founded on the Report.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They may be, but why are not the men responsible prosecuted and in gaol?

Earl WINTERTON: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about me personally, and may I point out that I believe some, at any rate, have in the past been in gaol.

Mr. BUCHANAN: So has my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but for something else.

Earl WINTERTON: These men have been in gaol for corruption.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They may have been for some past offence, but why are not those responsible for the present conditions in prison? Here are men who, to use the language of the Dominions Secretary, have committed serious criminal offences, among the most serious on the Statute Book, and yet they are not dealt with and gaoled. Is the answer that if they were prosecuted others, some of whom might be in future in the Government under the Commissioners, would be involved also? A fact that stands out clearly is that the Governor presided at meetings while the corruption and graft were going on. Possibly he is going to preside over them in the future. The Governor is going to preside over where the graft and the corruption—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not this Governor!"] That is true, but the other Governor was not proceeded against, and there is nothing to prevent him from being one of the Commissioners. Take the position of any
of us here. We might be the chairman of a trade union or of a board of directors. If those directors were guilty of corruption or of graft should we not expect the chairman to be proceeded against? But that has not been done in this case. Indeed, from the way in which the Secretary of State for the Dominions looked across the Table, one would almost have thought that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment had committed the graft.
The best way to stop corruption and graft in the future is not to deprive the people of the franchise but to punish the guilty men, in the hope that it will not happen again. The City of Glasgow had a, very small and meagre graft scandal, and there have been charges of corruption against various other local authorities, some on a large scale and some on a small scale, but nobody ever suggested depriving the people of their votes, suspending the local authorities and putting somebody else over them. What happened in those cases was that the men guilty were punished. We might as well say that the Salvage Corps is to be abolished because a certain man is charged with corruption. The right hon. Gentleman says, however, "I am not going to punish anybody. I do not wish to punish the unfortunate victims." Who is he punishing? The only people being punished are those not responsible for the corruption and the graft, those who did not get a pennyworth of graft. In this House of Commons there have been men who have been convicted of corruption, and the same thing has happened on local authorities, and in those cases they have been punished, and, in addition, have not been allowed to hold office.
What should have been done here was to establish a case against the men who were guilty, and then the legislature should have said to the people of Newfoundland, "If you elect these men again we will not allow them to hold office for a certain number of years." But no; the corrupt people are left with the money in their pockets and are not being punished, and the only ones to be punished are the ordinary people. The corrupt people are still there, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman is too afraid to prosecute them. He used to manage a union. Would he have shown so much kindness,
toleration and consideration to people guilty of corruption in his union? When he came across cases of corruption and graft in his union he acted, and I do not say that he acted wrongly. Sometimes he acted against a great deal of criticism. But he did not suspend the members of a branch from voting. He sent those who were guilty to the courts to be tried. [Interruption.] He did not "sack" the general secretary or the chairman of the union. No. the general secretary never was "sacked"; he "chucked it."
The right hon. Gentleman will not accept the suggestion of three years because, he says, this is a temporary arrangement. Three years is a fair time. "Temporary" might mean anything—10 or 12 or 14 years. The right hon. Gentleman also says, "If it is three years they may come back." If they come back he has a simple remedy—he can re-enact this Measure. The only difference will be that he will have to meet the House of Commons and justify his procedure again. If his contention be true that the men would only be waiting until the three years had elapsed the word "temporary" will not get over the difficulty, because they would wait just the same for their opportunity. But I say that though "temporary" is the word used there is no real thought in the minds of the Government that this action will be temporary only. If the Government feel that three years is too short a period let them say five years, or four. The only decent thing the House of Commons can do with a Measure which takes away the rights of the people is to limit its operations to a quite definite period of time.

4.37 p.m.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot have studied the report. Everyone who knows Newfoundland, as I do, knows that certain names have been brought up in connection with these scandals. The whole point of the Secretary of State's argument is that he wants to kill the system—that he cannot deal with individuals, because to do so would cover a very large number of people and a very long period of time, and that it is the system which is at fault from one end to the other. It would be no use proceeding against one or two persons, because we should never finish—

The CHAIRMAN: I did not want to stop the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but I must warn the Committee that they have been rather inclined to drift a little beyond the terms of this Amendment. On this Amendment we cannot go into a general discussion of what should be done in regard to any charges of corruption.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I was going on to support the view of the Minister, because I feel that when the system is under discussion we cannot put in a time-limit of three years; and until conditions in Newfoundland are restored and the political situation is cleaned up I feel that it is essential to support the Government in their policy.

1.39 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: Surely the answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) should be a fairly simple one, and I hope I shall not stray beyond the bounds of order in advancing it. It is a truism to say that a country gets the Government which it deserves. What normally happens when a country gets a bad Government is that it throws it out and substitutes a Government which is honest and efficient. In Newfoundland they did not do that. The people did not take their courage in both hands and throw out these Governments one after another. A few months ago, however, they put in the present Government, against which there is no breath of suspicion in the report. What did the present Government do? They asked for the Constitution to be withdrawn, and for six commissioners to be established in office.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with this Amendment.

Mr. PETHERICK: I was rather afraid of straying from the point, but what I wished to indicate was that the Newfoundlanders have asked for this themselves, and it would be a very dangerous thing to fix a period of only three years before the government of the country must be handed back to them. We should be incurring very grave risks, because politicians who are no longer in power might, in three years, undermine the position of the six commissioners. If by putting in a definite time within which the Constitution must be handed back we were to hold out any hope to the
politicians of Newfoundland, it would obviously encourage them to do their utmost to undermine the position of the six commissioners. For that reason it would be unwise to adopt the Amendment.

4.43 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I think it would be most inadvisable to insert any term, whether three or 13 or 30 years. The desire of this country to hand back to Newfoundland its constitution as soon as it is able to stand on its own feet has been made very clear. I would like to endorse a suggestion made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It would be desirable to substitute the word "suspend" for the word "revoke," and I ask the Secretary of State to give some attention to that point.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to support the Amendment and would ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. A new issue which really disturbs me has been raised by him. Though he may not have said it in so many words, he left on me the impression that when we have suspended the present Government of Newfoundland self-government is to remain suspended until such time as we are satisfied that the people there have reached a moral standard which will justify us in restoring to them self-government. That is the attitude we adopt towards Protectorates, "The lesser breeds without the law." We are saying that we are to be the judges of when they are fit to govern themselves. That is something new. The Bill does not say that; the Bill only suspends self-government until Newfoundland is self-supporting financially. That is an entirely different story. That is a business proposition. If the figures are produced, you can say whether the country is self-supporting or not, but who can ever say when a nation is morally entitled to self-government? A balance-sheet is one thing, but morals are an entirely different thing; they are intangible and imponderable.
While the right hon. Gentleman declines to put a date in the revocation of self-government, there is a date put by
the Government themselves in the Bill. It is perhaps an optimistic date, but it is presumably a date which all the parties who have given close examination to the question have come to the conclusion is reasonable. The financial arrangements are due for consideration and revision three years hence, on 31st December, 1936. If it is reasonable to estimate that Newfoundland will be self-supporting in three years time, it is reasonable to say that, if the financial provisions are to be revised, the political conditions should be revised also. The fact that men have been very corrupt in the political life of the nation does not seem to bear very heavily on the question of how long the suspension of self-government is to continue. My own experience of graft is that people do not need to have a seat in Parliament in order to carry on corrupt methods. If the men who acted corruptly in the political affairs of Newfoundland are running about loose in that country, looking for further opportunities of gain for themselves at the expense of their fellows, I am sure that the opportunities will not be lacking. One of the reasons why I was anxious that this should go to a Select Committee rather than to a Committee of the whole House was that there might be an examination of the people who hold the stock.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting rather beyond the Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, perhaps that is so, but the point that I was making is simply this, and I think it still remains good, that I have no reason to assume that the very persons who were engaged in the corruption may not also be large holders or Newfoundland stock. I have no means of knowing. The right hon. Gentleman cannot assure me that the biggest people concerned in the whole thing are not probably very large holders of Newfoundland stock. We have this grotesque situation, that the government of the country is to be suspended so that we may make the investments of the corrupt Government profitable. That does not seem to me to be any solution, and I think it is a reasonable and a fair thing to ask that when this House is taking such a big step it should put in a definite limit, so that in three years' time we may review the whole situation with a view to seeing whether the financial
affairs of Newfoundland have got on to a decent footing, and how far the Government that have been put into operation have dealt with the corruption which will take place in the industrial, commercial and financial life of the community even though the political end of it has been put a stop to.

4.50 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I am rather inclined to support the first part of this Amendment merely on the grounds that the word "suspend" more accurately defines the position. "Revoke," whether it is correct in grammar or in any other way, will certainly mean to the general public that this Parliament is imposing something upon Newfoundland—I may say, in passing, that the place is generally known to seamen as Nu'-fund-land'—that is what people generally will think, but actually that is very far from being the case. We are imposing nothing upon Newfoundland, but we are doing something which the people in Newfoundland are asking us to bring about. As for the second part of the Amendment, I do not agree with the period of three years. If the Newfoundland Government had thought that they could see daylight at the end of three years I do not think that they would have called upon us to help them. We may infer that they found themselves in a morass from which they could see no way out, and they called upon the Mother Country to come to their assistance. There is no definite period during which the suspension or revocation should be continued. In the address presented to His Majesty's Government by the Legislative Council of Newfoundland, not a definite day, but a definite moment was mentioned. The Council asked that
Until such time as the Island may become self-supporting again, the administration of the Island should be vested in His Excellency the Governor acting on the advice of a specially created Commission of Government.
I support the Government in rejecting the Amendment, because a time limit is unnecessary and would spoil all that we are seeking to bring about. The actual moment is the time, and that moment will be clear enough to anybody, for when Newfoundland is self-supporting the people will once again govern themselves. For that reason, I support the Government.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: As I have been sitting here, the question that has been in my mind is, "When are the people of Newfoundland going to have an opportunity of reviewing the financial arrangements which are now being made? Hon. Members have started off with the assumption that we are doing all this in the interest of the people of Newfoundland, but we are not doing anything of the kind; we are doing this for the bondholders. We are putting the brokers in. I understand that the payment of loan charges amounts to something like 60 per cent. of the annual revenue of Newfoundland, and we are putting these gentlemen in to collect the money for the joint-stock bondholders of Great Britain and for other holders of securities. A time limit cannot be given, because, if we consulted the people of Newfoundland within a reasonable space of time, they might repudiate some of the obligations incurred by the corrupt governments of the past. That would not interfere with the establishment of good government in Newfoundland so much as with the sleep and digestion of bond-holders. We must allow these commissioners to remain there indefinitely because they may have to remain there indefinitely in order to collect this money for the bondholders.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are going to pay the money." We are going to pay some of the money, but we are going to collect the revenues and hand it over to the bondholders. We are putting the bailiffs in to distrain upon the Newfoundland people in order to pay the bondholders, and, if the bailiffs cannot get enough, the generous people will pay the rest to the bondholders. That is the situation. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he will inform the Committee that, in an appreciable space of time, the Newfoundland people are to be consulted as to whether the time has arrived for them to have their Constitution restored. The point that has been emphasised is that the Constitution is to be restored upon the initiative of the bailiffs. That is not fair. Ought not the people of Newfoundland themselves, at some time, to be allowed to determine whether they want their Constitution back again?
It is true that the Government which those people elected have asked us to
revoke the Letters Patent, but what that Government cannot do is to give their power away permanently. They have been elected and they have no right permanently to abrogate the powers of the Newfoundland people. This House of Commons has not the right to pass a law permanently suspending the right of the people of England to elect another Parliament. What the Government of Newfoundland have done has been to usurp the functions and the powers which have been reposed in them by the people of Newfoundland, and they have said to the British Government: "The Government of Newfoundland declare that no longer will the people of Newfoundland ever want to elect another Government again."

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to stop the hon. Member, but perhaps he will allow me to point out that he appears to be mistaken as to the contents of the Address.

Mr. BEVAN: The point that has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is that the action which we are now taking is at the request of the Newfoundland Government.

The CHAIRMAN: That was what I wanted the hon. Member to understand. He spoke of Newfoundland having done a certain thing. What they have done is to ask the Government in this country to do that certain thing.

Mr. BEVAN: That is the very point I am trying to make. I cannot be making myself clear. I have understood from hon. Members and from the right hon. Gentleman that the Newfoundland Government are asking this Government to take the steps which are embodied in this Bill. We are determining in this Bill to set aside the Constitution of Newfoundland for an indefinite period.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right.

Mr. BEVAN: That is the point that I am making. I want to ask the Committee whether any Government democratically elected have the right permanently to perpetuate themselves, or to give away the powers under which they have been elected. It appears to me that the point which is being raised in the Amendment is that, at some time or other and within an appreciable space of time, the people
of Newfoundland ought to be consulted as to whether they want to take those powers back again. How is it going to be done? The right hon. Gentleman might be making a perfectly good point, but I do not know sufficient about it to say whether he is right or wrong, when he says that if you put the Commission in for three years, the other people will be marching up and down the island sabotaging the attempts of the commissioners to get the country on its feet again. That may be perfectly correct, but it does not relieve the right hon. Gentleman of the obligation of providing some instrument by means of which the people of Newfoundland can democratically determine whether they want to have their Constitution restored.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bend his mind to that problem? I believe that Members in all quarters of the House will agree that some such provision should be contained in the Measure. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman exposes himself to the charge that he is not concerned about the people of Newfoundland, but is concerned with making an arrangement by means of which the brokers may be in permanently. That is a very serious charge to make against a British Government; it is a very serious charge to make against the probity of the House of Commons; and it is certainly a reversal of the tendency of all the Crown Colonies to become ultimately self-governing Dominions. Therefore, even if the Dominions Secretary cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I would ask him to give the Committee an assurance that some instrument will be found by means of which the initiative for restoration of the Constitution may be exercised by the people of Newfoundland.

5.2 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is perfectly true that Newfoundland, through its elected representaties, has asked to have this Bill passed, and, that being so, the Government are fully justified in bringing in the Measure. But the question we have to ask ourselves is: When this scheme has been in operation for a few years, will the people of Newfoundland continue to be satisfied with the action of their elected representatives? I would ask the House to remember that in the time of Richard II this sovereign Parliament met at Shrewsbury and in three
days abolished all the powers of Parliament that had been built up in the preceding 150 years. They restored all powers to the Crown. But within two years of that date Richard II was deposed and murdered. You cannot rely upon the Newfoundland people remaining of the same mind indefinitely, and I think it is obvious, from what we know of English people everywhere, that as times goes on the people get dissatisfied with even the best of Governments. I am told that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction even with the National Government—after two years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Incredible!"] It is rather incredible, but that is the English nature. Give them a Government, and they will find something wrong with it—so unlike the Germans! But that is a national failing, or it may be a national advantage.
It is probably accepted in all quarters of the House that it would be impossible to restore to Newfoundland in three years, with any hope that the whole system would have changed in that time, its powers of self-government. That being so, if you want to prevent agitation in Newfoundland—fostered very largely by the people who have lost their power of graft—if you want to prevent that agitation from growing and making the task of the Secretary of State and this Parliament more difficult, you must provide some substitute for the liberties enjoyed at the present time by the Newfoundland people. At the present moment they have cast their Constitution and liberties to the winds and have handed over everything to the right hon. Gentleman to get them out of the mess: but that will not endure unless they feel that they too have a voice in controlling the right hon. Gentleman and influencing this Parliament. If they are completely shut off, if they not only lose their local government but have no influence over the new Government, we shall undoubtedly be face to face in a few years with a Home Rule agitation in Newfoundland very similar to the Home Rule agitations with which the right hon. Gentleman is so unpleasantly and thoroughly acquainted. I feel that everyone in the House of Commons must see that a perfectly simple way out of this danger, which is a very real danger, is that there should be a representative—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is forgetting on which Amendment he is speaking.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I quite agree. My Amendment will come on later, no doubt, when we shall be able to discuss the full significance of this point thoroughly and more at length, and take a vote on it. But it is very material to the Amendment which we are discussing at the moment, for how can we decide whether we ought to put a limit on this if we do not know what proposals the Government have at the back of their minds for creating the connection between Newfoundland and this country, and what substitute they propose for the democratic institutions which they are taking away from that country? The whole question is one of agitation. If you are going to have a three-year limit, then you may neglect any system of making the new régime more palatable to the Colony, but, if you are not going to have a three-year limit, it becomes all the more vital that we should know what is in the mind of the Government as to the representation of Newfoundland. I hope that those of us who are in doubt as to how to vote on this Amendment will have some assurance from the Secretary of State, before a vote is taken, that the Government do contemplate building up something in the nature of democratic representation to take the place of what they are taking away, because, if nothing is put in the place—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to develop that by giving his reasons.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would not think of giving any reasons, Sir Dennis: I would merely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, in the interest of getting their Bill through and of reducing opposition, to let us know whether they have at the back of their minds something which is capable of taking the place of what we are destroying in this Bill. It is all very well to say that this is an Address which was voted by the House of Assembly at St. John's. That is quite true, but, if the Government base themselves on that, they will have, not only in this Debate but continuously from now onwards, an agitation to put an end to it. We are a sovereign Power. The Assembly at St. John's is
a temporary constitutional expedient for arriving at the views of Newfoundland, but the ultimate ruling of that country rests, and must always rest, with us. It may be that it is impossible so to amend this Bill as to provide the alternative, but at least let us have from the Secretary of State a reassurance that something is to be done to replace what is being destroyed.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: It is rather a pity that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure spoke so early as he did on this Amendment, as I feel that, after having heard some of the arguments that have been put forward, he might have been more willing—and perhaps he will do so now, having expressed his own point of view on the matter—to give further consideration to the present Amendment. I would like to adduce one or two other arguments in favour of the Amendment, or at least in favour of some promise from the Dominions Secretary to fix a period of time, so that the people of Newfoundland might be able to reconsider their position and we might be able to reconsider ours. The new Commission that is being set up will act, I have no doubt, in perfect good faith and honesty, but it will probably find, after experience in carrying out its new duties, that it will be necessary to impose some form of new taxation, and one of the things that will perhaps irritate the people of Newfoundland more than anything else will be the imposition of new taxes. I rather fancy, therefore, that Members of the House of Commons will be receiving within a very short time all kinds of memoranda from organisations in Newfoundland asking us to reconsider the position, in which they have put themselves by asking us to impose a certain form of government on them, which we are now proposing to do.
In addtiion to that, there will have been set up over there what I would call a new vested interest. No doubt there will be considerable changes in the Civil Service in Newfoundland; no doubt new people will be imported into the country to aid the commissioners in carrying out their work; and these people, once having obtained their vested interests—the commissioners and those who are employed by them—will not easily give up
the opportunities which they have of making, perhaps, a reasonably easy living, and every obstacle will be placed in the way of the people of Newfoundland if they have a desire, and express that desire, at any time in the future to have back their old freedom and rights under the Constitution as it exists to-day.
I listened to some of the debates on the Bill and on the Money Resolution, but I have not heard anyone yet give a reason why all the people of Newfoundland should be punished because a few of them were criminals—and, after all, that is what we are doing. We are taking away from them something that we in this country, and people in most other countries where they have the privileges that we have here, value very highly—the right to vote, the right to take their part and express their will in examining the policy of their Government. I venture to say that if anyone were to suggest that those privileges should be taken away from the people of this country, there would be a wave of resentment which no government could resist for very long. If we take that point of view ourselves, why should we punish, as we are punishing, the great mass of the people of Newfoundland because a few people there went wrong and committed what was undoubtedly a Crime? I cannot imagine the right hon. Gentleman advocating that principle on a platform, or trying to justify the punishment of the whole of the people of the country just because a comparatively few people, who were elected in good faith by them to carry out their duties honestly, went wrong, committed crimes, and exploited the position—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the question of punishment; he must keep strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: I am afraid I was led astray by the fact of the right hon. Gentleman himself referring to some of these matters. The point that I would make is this, that, if there is to be a punishment, that punishment should be restricted in time. I think that that is a perfectly justifiable view. I hope even now the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the Amendment from two points of view. In the first place, I add my plea to that already made from both sides of
the House that the word "revoke" should be taken out and the word "suspend," or some other such word, inserted. The other is that some period of time should be inserted or, failing that, that at some stated time an opportunity should be given to the people of Newfoundland, and also to Members of this House, to raise the whole matter. If then the House decided that the time had not arrived to restore the Constitution, a further period could be agreed to before their constitutional rights were given back. I hope the House will not permit treatment of the people of Newfoundland such as they would resent bitterly if it were imposed on them, that we should completely take away their political rights and their opportunity to use the franchise in the way that they themselves think best.

5.17 p.m.

Sir PERCY HURD: I should like to ask if there are any legal or constitutional difficulties in the way of the adoption of a word like "suspend." Unquestionably, looking at it from the point of view of public opinion in Newfoundland, there is much to be said for the adoption of some such word as "suspend," because we are giving Newfoundland a new start. We are trying to make her see the virtues of good government on better lines than in the past, and we are holding out the hope that at some future time the Constitution in some form or other will be restored to them. The word "revoke" is an ugly word to use when you are holding that hope before the people. Is it not possible to use the word "suspend" in order to carry forward the hope in a more definite way than the word in the Bill.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There is no difference between any of us on either side of the Committee as to the point of not conveying to these people that this is a change in the Constitution that is to last for all time. I want to make that above all absolutely clear. I am told that there is no material difference between the words "suspend" and "revoke" and, in order that the Committee shall be assured that we do not mean anything different, and that it is temporary, I will consider between now and Report whether there is any word as between "revoke" and "'suspend" which makes that clear. In their own interests I would much prefer
that there should be no question of a period. There seems to be a general and very natural anxiety that after the Bill passes we shall cease to be interested and nothing further will arise. I wish to assure the Committee that, whoever is the Dominions Minister, this House alone can be responsible, and it will be open to hon. Members at any time to raise the whole issue. It is too grave a problem to assume that, whatever may be the views of Newfoundland, this House will be indifferent to such an old Colony.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the other point: whether he cannot include somewhere in the Bill an instrument by means of which the initiative in obtaining the restoration of the Constitution can be exercised by the people of Newfoundland as well as by Members of the House?

Mr. THOMAS: I knew something of the position in Newfoundland before I took the responsibility of recommending the commission, but it would be said: "It is no use talking about self-government and saying the Dominions are free when you yourself attempt to interfere." I cannot give the hon. Member the assurance that he asks, for this reason. I want to give a new start to Newfoundland. The Government want to see these people have a real chance. Nothing would give me more satisfaction, however unpleasant the Bill is, than to be able by some new system that I may introduce to get rid of the track system. It is no good my making promises about plebiscites or periods of time, because no one can judge, but I shall welcome the day, possibly earlier than three years, when we shall be able to say to the House that the position in Newfoundland is restored, and I will do everything I can to bring that about speedily. That is the maximum assurance that I can give.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: Is it not possible to form some sort of consultative council to advise the Governor and the commission?

The CHAIRMAN: We are getting into a rather undesirable form of debate altogether. Questions have been put to the Secretary of State, the last in particular, which have nothing to do with the Amendment.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: It seems to me that the Amendment is seeking to protect the people of Newfoundland by giving them some idea when there will be a case to determine whether they shall get back to self-government. It is true that the Dominions Secretary has asked for a suspension until such time as the Colony is self-supporting again, but, when people are in difficulties, right down and out, they make assertions that they regret afterwards. We are considering this calmly, knowing the difficulties of the case and trying to give them some hope for the future. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman insert three years time, and, if then they are not self-supporting or do not want to get back to the former position, the time can carry on a little longer. We are very anxious to protect these people on these lines, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance that he will indicate some time when the matter will be reviewed, we shall readily accept it. We can question him at any time, but it will simply be a question and answer, and the matter will be put on one side. We have a right to ask for an assurance that in a given period of time the people of Newfoundland will be able to come back to their former position if they desire.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think there is a large measure of common agreement on this technical side of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) for the first time in his life very nearly brought some conviction to my mind. I think the period of three years might go. Several of us are a little worried about the words in the Bill. I am in a very great difficulty, because I am not a lawyer, and I do not know whether it is possible to put in other words at this point. You must have some word such as "revoke" or "recall," because I do not see how you can suspend Letters Patent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is precisely what His Majesty is graciously asked to do in the First Schedule.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I fully accept the position as laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the word "suspend" there may be a technical error.
I do not know whether the Government, for purposes of economy, have suspended the Law Officers, but we are never able to get a legal opinion. I see no possibility of setting down a definite period. The right hon. Gentleman has already made two speeches, which have been most interesting, but he has had to admit that he does not know whether he can change the word "revoke" to "suspend." I am only out to try to help him out of his difficulty. We have r: o advice, and it is extraordinarily difficult to many of us to know what to do. I suppose we have to make the best of a bad job, and we must take it that "revoke" is the only possible word that can be used, but we are a little sorry that it has had to be put in. We are all agreed that we want to see the position brought back and the Newfoundlanders managing their own affairs. We should, wherever we possibly can, use terms that make it clear that that is not merely a pious aspiration. We want to lay it down very clearly that it is the intention of the House of Commons to restore to them some method of controlling their own affairs when the time arrives. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs say that he was going to go into this matter carefully, and I entreat him to use words which will most explicitly convey the idea that we hope to see the position changed.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I am certain that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will know exactly what to do by and by. He permits his thinking to be done by other people. He may grasp the purpose of the Amendment, but when the Division takes place he will permit other people to do his thinking for him. We are obliged to the Minister for giving this matter a second thought, and we hope that he will consider the whole of the Amendment. A time limit has really been specified in these Debates. I listened to the whole of the Debate on the Second Reading, and I heard the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Financial Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer specified that in three years the whole matter would be reconsidered financially. The sum of £500,000 is being given this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated,
in reply to a question, that until 1936 grants would be made to Newfoundland, and that at the end of that time the matter would be reconsidered.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The question of grants and loans will be reconsidered; that was the only question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The fact that the Treasury in that regard have considered some sort of time limit entitles the Committee to press for the acceptance of the whole of the Amendment. I hope that at this stage we shall not have a division on the matter, but that the Minister will intimate to the Committee that not only will he reconsider the terms but also the question of the time limit as well. Democracy and Parliamentarianism as such are sacred matters to Members of Parliament, and we hope that in their own interests the people who, according to the Bill, have asked the Government to do something for them, will be (permitted in three years' time on their own volition to ask for the whole matter to be reconsidered. It is too much to tie down the people of Newfoundland to a position for a period of more than three years. As far as we know, the Bill is really for the purpose of making a payment to bondholders, and it is too much to ask the people to sacrifice their Constitution in the interests of the rentier class in this way. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will reconsider the whole of the Amendment, and not merely the part to which he has referred.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, though he acknowledged that there was no fundamental difference between us, was not able to give a promise further than merely to consider whether he could possibly substitute the word "suspend" for the word "revoke." My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee advanced a series of convincing arguments in support of the Amendment as a whole. I should like to advance one or two arguments of our point of view at this end. I am not sure that I appreciate how the system is to work in this House, and I advance this objection as a ground for urging a limitation in the matter of time. What is to happen? As I see it, there will be in Newfoundland a governor acting in commission associated with six colleagues,
and apart from them, there will be no organ or machine of government. Those seven people will be, for all practical purposes, autocrats within the island, and I take it that from time to time they will feel obliged to carry certain pieces of legislation. The legislation will be carried by those seven people and will operate throughout the island. It will be carried in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would urge that the time must be regulated because of the difficulties which will be created in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman, in support of his present position, urged that we should be able to review the situation from time to time. What will happen in point of fact? A law is propounded. How can we examine it here, and when? Suppose a law is carried with regard to the fisheries, when can we raise the matter, and how can we raise it? As I understand the position, we can only do so by questions in this House. We cannot discuss the actual terms of the law, until, if we think fit, the Estimates of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman come before the House. If that is the sort of system which is to be in operation, we ought not to have it prevelant for very long. Three years is far too long, because in practice there will be no sort of supervision, or cross-examination of the right hon. Gentleman by way of Debate, regarding the actual work that will be done in his name in Newfoundland. If this system lasts for three, five or 10 years, we shall have erected in Newfoundland for that period of time a system under which, in practice, seven people will be doing just as they please.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is not only getting beyond the scope of the Amendment but beyond the scope of the Bill. The Bill, the principle of which has already been carried on Second Reading in this House, does not give this House or this Parliament the power to administer the affairs of Newfoundland here but to set up an administration in Newfoundland.

Mr. JONES: But a system of that sort should be limited in the matter of time. It is too dangerous a system to be allowed to go on indefinitely. That is the point which I am submitting, and it is the point
which the Committee ought to have clearly in mind when it empowers the Government to carry legislation of this sort. I do not wish to use terms which are unjust, but in my judgment we are asked by implication to allow a system of autocratic government to be established in the island. The right hon. Gentleman urged that he, like the rest of us, was not anxious to mulct the people of Newfoundland unjustly on account of the state of affairs which has existed. I submit that if we accept his word "revoke"—which, after all, is not the word which they themselves suggest in page 5 of the Bill where the First Schedule is printed—we are involving, not perhaps intentionally but by implication, the mulcting of these people in a form of punishment which they do not deserve. I will not argue the question as to the degree of corruption or otherwise which has taken place in Newfoundland. I see in page 7 of the Bill, in the last sentence of the Annex to the First Schedule these words:
It would be understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government."—
mark the words—
on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
I return to the point which I made at first. As I see the position, there will be no machine of government. There will be no vocal expression of the opinion or desires of the people of Newfoundland, no elected assembly, and no organisation. How then does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ascertain the mind and the will of the people of Newfoundland until, in their opinion, the time has come for this state of affairs to be brought to an end? What sort of expression of opinion will be acceptable by the right hon. Gentleman to bring it to an end? I merely repeat that a very unusual proposal is being put to the Committee. It is the abrogation of a right which has long been possessed by those people and of which they are very proud, and because it is such an abrogation, I submit that the time limit which we have suggested in sufficiently long for the condition of affairs such as we have hinted at.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I desire further to stress the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale
(Mr. A. Bevan) and stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) with regard to the absence of machinery by which the people of Newfoundland could make themselves heard. It is a point of very great substance and something of which the British Government ought to take note. The punishment, as far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned, is too great altogether. They are being punished for crimes which are not theirs. It is not so much bad government for which the people of Newfoundland are being punished, for the right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to wipe out the past. The past was a very bad form of administration. There is something very repugnant to us in all forms of truck, but if there had been nothing more than truck in the Island of Newfoundland, no notice would have been taken. It is not bad government in the form of truck which has roused the British Government to

action, but bad bargaining on the part of the bondholders far more than truck.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Debate has been carried on without acrimony, and in an atmosphere of obvious good wishes so far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned. If we can conjointly get some form of words, or some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will provide a form of words that will give to the people of Newfoundland machinery which will be at their disposal when they desire to use it, it will meet the wishes of the House, and go far to meet the point expressed by hon. Members who support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'revoke' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 41.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
 [5.47 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Christie, James Archibald
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hanbury, Cecil


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Aske. Sir Robert William
Colville, Lleut.-Colonrl J.
Harbord, Arthur


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Conant, R. J. E.
Hartington, Marquess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cook, Thomas A.
Hartland, George A.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cooke, Douglas
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Barrie Sir Charles Coupar
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Holdsworth, Herbert


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Croom-Johnson, R, P.
Hornby, Frank


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Crossley, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, Robert
Cruddas. Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Curry, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blindell, James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Borodale, Viscount
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tafton
Denville, Alfred
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Hurd, Sir Percy


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duggan, Hubert John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Briant, Frank
Duncan, Jamas A. L. (Kensington, N.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dunglass, Lord
Jamieson, Douglas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elmley, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Buchan, John
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Knox, Sir Alfred


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Burnett, John George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leckle, J. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Levy, Thomas


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lindsay. Noel Ker


Carver, Major William H.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goff. Sir Park
Llewellin, Major John J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)
Grattan- Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grimston, R. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G. (Partick)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Pybus, Percy John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F


McCorquodale, M. S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Summersby, Charles H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tate, Mavis Constance


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


McKeag, William
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Walter Russell
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Raid, David D. (County Down)
Thompson, Luke


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacPherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Rickards, George William
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Magnay, Thomas
Robinson, John Roland
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tree, Ronald


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Watt, Captain George Stevan H.


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Weymouth, Viscount


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
White, Henry Graham


Morrison, William Shephard
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Moss, Captain H. J.
Scone, Lord
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Munro, Patrick
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Womersley, Walter James


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Petherick, M.
Smithers, Waldron



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Storey, Samuel
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris Jones.


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Stourton, Hon. John J.



Potter, John
Strauss, Edward A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W,
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John

5.56 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "revoke," to insert:
after a plebiscite of the people of Newfoundland has approved the Address by the Legislative Council and House of Assembly in Newfoundland in the terms set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.'
The point of the Amendment is very obvious, and I need not elaborate it. The Parliament of Newfoundland has agreed to give away the rights of self-government for Newfoundland, and the British Imperial Parliament is in process of approving that decision. The only people whose approval has not been asked, and whose approval under the present provisions of the Bill will not be asked, are the people whose lives are concerned in
the proposal. The central proposal of the Bill is to rivet on to the workers of Newfoundland the responsibility of the debt for a period of 60 years. From every fish they catch, every tree they fell, every bit of food they grow, the first share is to go to the bondholders of the Newfoundland debt for 60 years. For the next 60 years we are tying these people up to a bargain which involves their lives, and they are the only people who have not been consulted and who are not going to be consulted.
We are told by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that if the Newfoundland people were allowed to have a general election just now, they would return to power the very people who are responsible for the corruption. I am always very suspicious of
political prophecies; I am suspicious of my own prophecies, and I have almost ceased to attempt prophecies. I do not know whether a general election in Newfoundland would return a government of the same description as that which, has brought the country into its present trouble, but if that be so, then the Government need have no hesitation in submitting this question to a plebescites, because, presumably, they would get the answer that they want, namely, an endorsement of the suspension of self-government for the period suggested. There may be same argument about the time involved in taking such a plebiscite, but I do not think that need be a very serious consideration. Such a plebescite could be very simple in form. The question could be asked: "Are you in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill, that the Government of Newfoundland should be put into commission and that your Representative Assembly should be abolished? It would only require a yes or no answer.
Presumably the people are well-informed about all the circumstances and about the proposals of the Measure. They have been discussed in the Assembly and, therefore, there need be no undue delay in ascertaining whether the people of Newfoundland are prepared to accept the rule of a commission over whose appointment they have no control, and no say in the selection of the personnel, and which ties them in a hard, firm way, for an extended period of time, to devote their labours and efforts, not primarily to the development of their land and the resources of the island, or to get better conditions of life for themselves. The guiding principle of this Bill is so to reorganise the affairs of Newfoundland that the debt to the bondholders may be regularly and steadily met. That is the purpose of the Bill, and anything else that is being done or proposed to be done by the report is incidental. The big purpose is to secure the interest on the debt. There is a curious reticence to say who these bondholders are; an extraordinary reticence to say where the money is held. We know that some of it is held in New York. [Interruption.] I think I can speak with complete confidence that no portion of the interest to be ground out of the Newfoundland fishermen is to come to the constituents of my two hon. Friends and
myself, nor do I think that very much will go to the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman.
These are circumstances which justify us in urging strongly that this House should know, that the former Government of Newfoundland should know, and that the proposed Commission Government should know, precisely what the people of Newfoundland think about these proposals. Indeed, if one is to anticipate any success on the part of the commission in their attempts to govern and reorganise Newfoundland, it is only if the commission have the cordial support of the Islanders as a whole. It will not help the production of wealth or the payment of interest to have the people of Newfoundland opposed to the policy. Unless the Islanders themselves are prepared to accept the government of this commission, and to reorganise under their guidance, no result will come. If I were a Newfoundland fisherman—in examining these things I always try to put myself in the place of the toad beneath the harrow—and was faced with this Bill, with its deprivation of political liberty and economic and industrial slavery, I would walk down to the pier at St. John's, get on board the first boat and keep going on until I had put thousands of miles between myself and the Island. [.Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite knows that I would not take myself outside the British Empire. I might go as far as Vancouver, where I think the climatic conditions are infinitely superior, the natural resources are not inferior and political corruption has not yet become quite so obvious.
If the 280,000 human beings in Newfoundland do not accept this scheme and decided that there are other places in the world where the conditions are more congenial, where the debt is not so heavy, and where some measure of political dignity can be maintained by the individual citizen, and left the Island; if these men decided that there were better places to go to than Newfoundland, this whole scheme falls to the ground. It does not work, it fails, unless there can be a substantial increase in the present population of Newfoundland. But it is bound to fail; it cannot possibly succeed. At an earlier stage I said that to ask some 70,000 actual wealth producers out of a population of 280,000, working in industries which are badly depressed, in
which the prices of their commodities are already depressed, to produce the capital and interest on £20,000,000 of debt, and at the same time maintain themselves and a government, is to ask an impossible thing. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, putting aside general democratic theories—in these days democracy as a theory is in a very anaemic condition, and democrats on whom we formerly relied to support democracy as a principle only support it now when it happens to be convenient—putting aside questions of democratic principles and theories, and looking at it from the point of view of the practical possibility of success, the right hon. Gentleman should make sure by a consultation with the people that they accept the proposals.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I cannot understand the reluctance of the Dominions Secretary to respond immediately to the reasonable request made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the momentous issues involved in the proposal. This is the first time a Dominion has been asked to relinquish its political rights. There is no parallel to the demand on the people of Newfoundland to surrender their rights of self-government in such a complete way, and the refusal of the Government to consider the Amendment, under the pretext that the Government of Newfoundland have already expressed the opinion of the island, does not meet the case. We do not wish to multiply hard words against the Government of Newfoundland or unduly to stress the unfitness of that Government to speak for the people of the island. Newfoundland is a small community, but it has held its place as a member of our self-governing communities within the Empire, and there has been, up to the moment, no difference between the political status of the inhabitants of Newfoundland and the inhabitants of any other part of the Empire. Now there will be a difference, because they are to be denied the right to say whether they desire to continue the present government, and they are to be denied that right because the British Government are willing to accept the opinion of the discredited Government in Newfoundland. Newfoundland is a small
and poor community with a population of 280,000. Are we taking this action because it is a small and a poor community? Is there any Imperial limitation to this kind of thing? Suppose that next year New Zealand is in financial difficulties—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member must raise that argument on a later Amendment; he cannot do it on the present Amendment.

Mr. GRENFELL: I am arguing the right of the people of Newfoundland to be consulted. The First Schedule says:
It would be understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
They have a right to be consulted regarding the restoration of their Government, and is it not equally right that the consent of the people should be obtained before they relinquish self-government? I see no argument against the Amendment, and I would like to point out that it would be quite possible to apply the same procedure in the case of larger Dominions. If the rule is to be applied here, it must be based on sound justification. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say why this elementary right is being denied to the people of Newfoundland. 6.14 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It was not because of any reluctance to reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that I did not rise immediately he sat down, but because I thought the hon. Member for Grower (Mr. D. Grenfell) desired to speak. We appreciate fully the motives of the hon. Member, but I am afraid that to accept the Amendment would be to interfere with something which is constitutionally within the discretion of the Newfoundland Government and Legislature. The point is that Newfoundland is still a Dominion. We are asking Parliament to pass legislation which is going to affect that Dominion and the procedure to be gone through in a case like that was laid down at the Imperial Conference of 1926. It was there said that this Parliament has no right to legislate for any Dominion, Newfoundland or any other, except at the request and with the consent of that
Dominion. But it does not lay down anything beyond that, except that the Dominion itself can decide what should be the form of expression of that request and consent.
It is no part of the duty of this Parliament to say to Newfoundland or to any other Dominion, "You have to express your consent or your request in this or in that particular form." The Government of Newfoundland have chosen to make the request in a certain way. The two Chambers of the Legislature have addressed His Majesty without a single dissentient voice, asking that this change of Government should take place, and we cannot constitutionally quarrel with the method that they have chosen. Quite apart from that, it is fair to say that all the information we have got or that hon. Members have got, both in the way of newspaper reports and information from other quarters, indicates that these proposals have the consent of the overwhelming majority of the Newfoundland people.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I expected to hear a reply from the Government, but not quite the reply that we have had from the Under-Secretary. I understand him to say that the reason why he cannot accept an Amendment which has commended itself to all of us is that there is a constitutional difficulty. What constiutional right has the existing Government in Newfoundland to give away the democratic rights of the people of Newfoundland? That point has not been replied to yet. What an elected representative has no right to do is to give away the right of other people to substitute someone else for him. It has been suggested that the existing Government of Newfoundland is a good Government, that all the others were bad Governments but that the present one is a good one; and that this good one has decided to ask this Parliament to take over Newfoundland. How do we know that this Newfoundland Government is a good one?

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is nothing left to steal.

Mr. BEVAN: All the other Governments in Newfoundland have exhausted the possibilities for graft inside the island, and the bondholders have now got
hold of the present Government and are saying "Unless you come to our rescue the whole edifice will collapse." That is all that has happened. All the other Governments were in the hands of the internal grafters and this one is in the hands of the external grafters. That is the only difference. The Under-Secretary suggested that the present Government, at the request of the bondholders, said, "For heaven's sake come to our rescue quickly, for if you do not the value of the bond will collapse and you will not be able to collect your money." The Under-Secretary says that that is a constitutional request. I suggest that if he really believes that the Government of Newfoundland is a good one and that it represents the people of Newfoundland, he should carry out the suggestion of the Amendment and consult the people of Newfoundland. Why should this House be asked, after our experience of the Governments of Newfoundland, to accept any request of this kind when the people of Newfoundland have not been properly considered? We shall have something more to say about this matter on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and then we shall be able to expand our arguments. The Under-Secretary will find it difficult, however, to persuade me that he has not more mental agility than to find an argument so obviously addled as the one he has just put forward.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I could not follow the argument of the Under-Secretary about the constitutional rights. I can imagine a relative of the Prime Minister being always clear in his arguments, but I cannot understand the Under-Secretary saying that because we are unable constitutionally to do this we are to suspend the constitution. He says that we cannot constitutionally take a plebiscite, but we can constitutionally suspend the Government. His argument comes to this. "You cannot take a plebiscite because the constitution says No. but you can suspend the constitution because the constitution says yes." That argument is not good enough. I would not expect it from the Dominions Secretary because he is a seasoned negotiator and Parliamentarian. There may be something in the case that as been put by the Government, but I cannot follow it. This is a serious step
that is being taken. It is a step that no one would take of his own free will, but we are told that circumstances are compelling it. We say that the people of Newfoundland ought to have some say on the matter. The Newfoundland Government wish this Bill to be passed in order to overcome certain difficulties.
I remember that the Secretary of State, at a certain stage in the Irish business, told us that if a vote of the Irish people could have been taken at that stage he had no doubt that the Irish people would not have supported the policy which now receives the support of the Irish Government. I gathered from him then that he would have liked to have seen a plebiscite of the Irish people taken, apart from the usual voting procedure. Surely then he cannot think that there is anything wrong in our making the simple request of this Amendment. Government is being taken from the Newfoundland people. There may be a strong feeling among the people behind this proposal, but I am not so sure about it. Let me give one illustration of the working of a plebiscite. I remember that in my own native city of Glasgow we were all brought up with the idea that the Scottish people woud never break the Sabbath. There was a campaign for the opening of the City Art Galleries on the Sabbath day. We were told that the people of Glasgow would not stand for it. We had a plebiscite, and, to my surprise, by an overwhelming majority the people voted for the Art Galleries being opened on the Sunday, though nearly everyone thought that the proposal would be defeated. The Under-Secretary says that the people of Newfoundland are behind this proposal. We do not know. At the last election in this country none of us thought that the results would come out as they did. I confess that they staggered me. One is never sure of democracy. It exercises its mind in its own way and the result is very difficult to prophesy. We say in this case, "Make sure."
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) put a point with great force. Parliament has a right to decide many things, but a Government has no right entirely to abrogate the will of the people. For many reasons the Secretary of State has a greater responsibility in
this matter than any man in this House, apart from being a Member of the Government, because his whole upbringing has been in democratic movements. One of the first things that my union put me into was the co-operative movement in which the right hon. Gentleman had taken a very prominent part in building up a printing society. The three Labour representatives in the Government are supposed to be a leaven of democracy in the Government. The people who voted for them quite seriously thought that when they were elected there was a firm guarantee that democracy would at least not be betrayed in the Government. Their position in the Government carries with it very serious responsibility.
If the Dominions Secretary is as sure as the Under-Secretary says, that the people of Newfoundland are with him, he ought not to be afraid of a plebiscite. Let a plebiscite be taken. I am convinced that when the reports of the Debates in this House are read in the homes of the Newfoundland people a majority is not likely to be found for these proposals. We ask that the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland should be ascertained.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. MCGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the Amendment. The proposal is extremely modest, and one which might have been expected to appeal to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. But I have always been alive to the fact that those who shout most about democracy are often the very people who are prepared, on occasion, to take away the rights of democracy. Democracy is a fine word, as long as the people have no power to make use of democratic institutions but, once they have that power, attempts are made to filch their democratic rights from them. The Under-Secretary said that certain institutions in Newfoundland had decided to apply for this commission because, we may take it, they found themselves in such a financial condition that they could not meet the obligations of the State for which they were responsible. It might be said that the only way of allowing democracy to operate properly in that case was to take away the major cause of the trouble in the island, and
that what is termed the "grafting element" might be dealt with, just as the man who steals coal or steals food is dealt with. But, because there are grafters, we propose to take away the rights of the people of Newfoundland and leave them no opportunity for democratic expression.
We on this side plead that before such a step is taken, the proper thing to do in a civilised community is to give the people the opportunity of expressing their mind by a plebiscite. Surely the Secretary of State cannot have any arguments against that course. If he has, then all we can say is that in this case he is approving of a dictatorship which he seeks to condemn in the "News Letter" and other periodicals. The people of Newfoundland have a right to a say in this matter. They are expected to bear the burden of the bondholders and moneylenders who invested money in that State. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the right of the people to select their governments was won, not by the present Government of Newfoundland or the present Government of this country, but by the heroic efforts of mankind in bygone days, and the duty of individuals in responsible positions to-day is not to give away that which they did nothing to win, but to endeavour to enlarge and extend the rights of democracy. If the Newfoundland Government have the right to demand that a commission should rule that country, have the people of Newfoundland no right to say whether or not such a course must be followed?
What would be the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman if the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and other hon. Members at present on this side of the House were on the Front Bench opposite, and if they were to say that a commission or a dictatorship would be appointed to rule in this country because democratic government had fallen on evil days and they were not going to trust to the ordinary Parliamentary rules any longer? Those who are occupying the Front Bench opposite, and especially those who term themselves Labour representatives, are supposed to be there to prevent dictators and autocrats from exercising dictatorial power. They profess to be safeguarding the rights of democracy, but in this
case they propose to hand away the rights of the people of Newfoundland. It is Newfoundland now, but later it may be New Zealand, or New South Wales or Queensland, or some other part of the British Empire. It may be that this is a "try-out" to see how dictatorship or Fascism would apply if run from the centre—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now seems to be getting far away from the Amendment.

Mr. MCGOVERN: It may be that I am, and I desire to get back to the question of the plebiscite. After all, there is a wide scope in connection with this Bill. What I wish to point out is that the power of selecting governments was won by the people and, while it is proposed here to take away that power, let it be remembered that the last word remains with the people of Newfoundland as to whether this new system is going to operate or not. In this country people fought for the right to vote. On one occasion at the Derby a woman threw herself before the King's horse and was trampled to death—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still making a Second Reading speech. He must confine himself to the question of whether or not the people of Newfoundland should be consulted by a plebiscite as to the carrying out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Mr. McGOVERN: I was using an illustration. I was pointing out the necessity for taking a plebiscite of the people on the question of whether those democratic rights, which were won for us in the past, should be taken away from them or not. People have been prepared to endure death because they believed it essential that they should have the right to select the Government under which they had to live. Are we to take it that in Newfoundland there is no hope of getting a Government composed of non-grafting elements? I do not believe it. If that applies to Newfoundland, it applies to every other part of the British Empire. The people of that country ought to be allowed to express their views on whether or not a certain part of their lives and their energies is to be devoted to paying debts on the stock of bondholders.
The people of Newfoundland have a right to say in what way they are going to live. They can only do so under a system of government of the people, by the people, for the people, and that is their right. While so-called democrats are here proposing to hand away that power, we on these benches claim our right to maintain that democracy has not completely failed for the reason that it has not been completely tried. If in this case there is no plebiscite, and if

this power is taken away from the people of Newfoundland, I still have hope that the people who could chase a Government and lock them up for a night or two, who could parade and riot in the streets, will also chase these men whom you are sending out there and make their lives unbearable should they attempt to rule the country in that way.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 247.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
 [6.40 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Williams, Or. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Goldie, Noel B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Christie, James Archibald
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Graves, Marjorie


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Grimston, R. V.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooke, Douglas
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Croons-Johnson, R, P.
Harbord, Arthur


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crossley, A. C.
Hartland, George A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Headlam. Lieut.-Cul. Cuthbert M.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Bernays, Robert
Denville, Alfred
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Dickie, John P.
Hornby, Frank


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Doran, Edward
Horsbrugh, Florence


Blindell, James
Drewe, Cedrie
Howard, Tom Forrest


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Briant, Frank
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Eastwood, John Francis
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elmley, Viscount
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Buchan, John
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
Jamieson, Douglas


Burnett, John George
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Janner, Barnett


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Ker, J. Campbell


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Carver, Major William H.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leckle, J. A.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Goff, Sir Park
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Spens, William Patrick


Levy, Thomas
Palmer, Francis Noel
Storey, Samuel


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Petherick, M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strauss, Edward A.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Potter, John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Summersby, Charles H.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pybus, Percy John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thompson, Luke


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rea, Walter Russell
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rickards, George William
Tree, Ronald


McKeag, William
Robinson, John Roland
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McKie, John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradestan)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macpherson. Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Ross, Ronald D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Magnay, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Runge, Norah Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Weymouth, Viscount


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
White, Henry Graham


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scone, Lord
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitcheson, G. G.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Womersley, Walter James


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & KInc'dine, C.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Smithers, Waldron



Moss, Captain H. J.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Munro, Patrick
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Sir George Penny and Captain


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Austin Hudson


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "Governor," to insert:
subject to the approval of the Dominions.
The Amendment as it stands on the Paper is to insert the words, "subject to the approval of the Dominions under the Statute of Westminster," but closer examination of the Statute of Westminster discloses the fact that there is no machinery in it that provides for this being done, although I think it is only fair to say that the conception of consultation with the Dominions on all matters affecting the Dominions is implicit in the whole Statute of Westminster, which is the setting up of a new conception of equality between the various parts of the British Empire. Therefore, although I am compelled not to include the words "under the Statute of Westminster," I urge the Dominions Secretary very strongly to accept my Amendment. I do not think the withdrawal of those words weakens the Amendment in any way. The consultation with the various Dominions may be just as serious and genuine if carried out by the Dominions Secretary himself, under the definite instruction of this House. Even supposing that the Statute
of Westminster does not confer specifically on him the duty to perform it, I presume that the Dominions Secretary would still accept an instruction from this House that this important matter should be submitted to all other places in the British Empire of similar status to Newfoundland, and presumably with as keen an interest in Newfoundland as has the Government of Great Britain itself.
The Dominion of Canada has a very obvious and close interest in the question of how Newfoundland is going to be ruled, and also a considerable interest in the financial standing of Newfoundland. The report of the commission indicates that at earlier stages the Canadian authorities have been consulted with reference to what was to happen in Newfoundland. Indeed, I gather that they were asked to share financial responsibility or to propose some steps by which Canada should be more intimately associated with the government of Newfoundland. That was at an earlier stage. His Majesty's Government obviously recognised in those consultations the close interest of the Dominion of Canada with Newfoundland, and I think it is not asking the Dominions Secretary to go far
beyond where he has already gone, having consulted Canada in the preliminary stages, to ask him to consult it now as to what its views are on the completed proposals as embodied in this Bill. If he admits, as he has admitted, the close interest of Canada in the future of Newfoundland, it is only a very limited step for him to recognise that Australia, South Africa, and Ireland have also their interests and their rights in the consideration of what is going to happen in this first Dominion to lose Dominion status after it has achieved it.
I do not know, and nobody here knows, how many other Dominions may be in difficulties, and nobody knows, if they were in difficulties, what steps the home Government would propose to take to aid them in their difficulties or to arrange for their future. In an earlier part of the discussion I suggested that it was a concern not merely of Great Britain, but of the whole Empire, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman that it is most desirable that all the Dominions should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this Bill and approving or disapproving of it. I do not know the extent to which Imperial Conferences bind the Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is probably fully informed on that aspect of the matter, but I remember that Imperial Conferences did make decisions along the lines of imposing compulsory consultations in certain circumstances on the various parts of the Empire.
Although I do not doubt the ability of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this point himself, I would add a word to what was said on a previous Amendment by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), to the effect that the absence of the Law Officers on this occasion is to be noted. It is becoming a most unusual thing on important Measures for Law Officers ever to be present in the House, and while I do not want to digress from the main purpose of my Amendment, these gentlemen are taking somewhat higher emoluments than the average on the assumption that they have special knowledge that is available for the service of the House. I think that, on a matter such as we have here, where very great legal issues may easily be in-
volved, it is desirable that one or other of the two Law Officers, or failing the two English Law Officers, one or other of the Scots Law Officers, should be present. It seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs that we should have four Law Officers in the service of the nation, and here, on a matter of high Imperial policy, we cannot get the service of even the most junior of them. I hope and trust that the omission will be rectified before very long.

Mr. COCKS: Move the Adjournment.

Mr. MAXTON: No. I do not want to do that. I do not want to interrupt the discussion of the Bill in that way, but I hope the Dominions Secretary will take steps to get one or other of the Law Officers here. I can remember on one occasion, when the Labour Government was in office, that a tremendous trouble was raised at about midnight as to the absence and whereabouts of the then Lord Advocate for Scotland. Indeed, there were very grave reflections cast upon the Lord Advocate, which must have been quite baseless, having regard to the fact that the present Government have elevated him since to a very high judicial position. I hope I shall never stoop to the depth of Parliamentary Opposition that Members who now occupy the Front Bench engaged in on that occasion, but I hope this very mild and, I hope, fairly couched protest of mine will meet with some response before the Debate goes very much further. Otherwise I shall be inclined to take the course suggested by hon. Members above the Gangway and move the Adjournment of the House until we have the benefit of that superior and highly-paid advice which is necessary for the full and adequate discussion of important Measures.
I made that digression because I was not fully aware of the extent to which Imperial Conferences impose a responsibility upon the Home Government to consult with the Dominions in matters affecting one or other of the Dominions. Apart from definite statutory obligations, there is a great obligation of courtesy involved. If the Secretary of State recognises the courtesy of consulting the other Dominions in a matter of this description, he can have no objection to making such consultations explicit within the four corners of the Bill.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have listened for a considerable number of years in this House to Committee stages of Bills, stages which have enabled Amendments to be put down with the purpose of eliciting information and of improving Bill, but invariably with the purpose of making some real contribution which, even if it were not illuminating on the particular subject of the Amendment, was at least interesting to the House on the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend, I am sure, will allow me to congratulate him and to say that I cannot remember an Amendment ever being moved in a speech which gave such a wide and interesting review of the position but in which—doubtless owing to my ignorance—I could find less connection with the Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS: I was not reflecting on the Chair, but paying a remarkable tribute to my hon. Friend's ingenuity in expounding a matter which does not appear to be quite the same on paper. I am looking rather at the Amendment which is on the Paper. I am in some doubt why the presence of the Law Officers is necessary on this Amendment, but I gathered that my hon. Friend, who is always considerate, did not call upon me to explain where they are or where they are likely to be. He made an incidental reference to past events. I am quite sure that if any legal point is involved this evening, we shall be assisted on these benches by the Law Officers. I put it no higher than that.
My hon. Friend has moved an Amendment, but not the Amendment on the Paper. Let the House observe that the Amendment on the Paper is to insert the words:
subject to the approval of the Dominions under the Statute of Westminster.
The hon. Member deleted the words "under the Statute of Westminster." He did not tell us why, but I ought to tell the Committee the reason. He was not perfectly sure when he put that Amendment down that it would be covered by the Statute of Westminster, but now, being perfectly aware that Newfoundland herself is ruled out of the Statute of Westminster at her own request, he very cleverly moves the Amendment with the words "Statute of Westminster" left out.

Mr. MAXTON: The explanation is much simpler than that. The reason why I cut out the words "under the Statute of Westminster" was that the Deputy-Chairman would not rule the Amendment in order as long as they were there.

Mr. THOMAS: Which shows, incidentally, how near the truth I was, and saves me the trouble of dealing with that part of the Amendment. My hon. Friend says he hopes that I will accept the Amendment. No one would be more shocked and surprised than my hon. Friend if I were to do so. I cannot conceive my hon. Friend sitting in that seat if I got up from this Bench and said, "I am going to accept an Amendment which says to all the Dominions, 'You yourselves must now be consulted and called upon to express an opinion upon the affairs of another Dominion which, in its own way, by its own Constitution and of its own free will, has asked for a certain action to be taken.'" The first answer the Dominions would give would be the same answer that my hon. Friend would give. They would say "Nothing doing; we not only do not want to be consulted—it is not our business—but if we for one moment assumed that we had a right to be involved, it would take away that very freedom and independence which we claim for ourselves."
My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that this would not only be an absurd situation, but also one that would not be accepted by the Dominions for a moment. He would agree at once that his only object in moving this Amendment is not that he is really concerned with the opinions of the Dominions, but that it would delay what he believes to be bad legislation. He will admit that he looks upon this as a bad Bill. He looks upon it as a reactionary Bill, as a Bill which would not do good to Newfoundland. We, on the other hand, regard it as a good Bill, and we do not admit that we are saying to the people of Newfoundland, "You fishermen, you miners, you general workers, you are now being called upon to do something wrong." That is not the truth. The truth is that this Bill is submitted to this House at the request of the Newfoundland Government under a Clause in the constitution of that country. We sincerely believe that it is in their best interests; we intend to make it a success in their interests, and consulta-
tion with the rest of the Dominions is not involved. For all those reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: As I have some apprehension with regard to this matter, I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House how this country comes to have a more intimate relation with Newfoundland than Australia, Canada or South Africa.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member does not, I think quite follow the reference to the Statute of Westminster in the Amendment on the Paper. He will observe that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) deleted the words "under the Statute of Westminster." The Statute of Westminster itself proivided, at Newfoundland's request, that it should not apply to her if she so desired. She made that request, and that is why the Statute of Westminster is not applicable to this Act.

Mr. BEVAN: That, of course, still leaves me in a very ambiguous position. I understand, because I have the Statute here, that Sections 2 to 6 inclusive are to apply to any Dominion which wishes to contract out or refuses to come in. I wish to know whether any relationship which exists between Newfoundland and this nation as a consequence of not coming under the Statute of Westminster involves us in the obligation of coming to the rescue of Newfoundland in these special circumstances any more than it involves Australia, South Africa or Canada. I can quite understand that there is a different constitutional relationship. I want to know whether the constitutional relationship which exists between us and Newfoundland is of a character which makes us more responsible to Newfoundland in this regard than the other Dominions. That is not yet clear. We understand that all the Dominions are peers with us; we are all equal within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Such obligations as we have one to the other are obligations voluntarily asumed. We have no right to impose upon any one of them any burden that it does not voluntarily accept. I should like to know whether, if one of the Dominions got into difficulties, it would have a claim upon us?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved says the Dominions shall be consulted. We have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman whether such a consultation has taken place and, if so, in what form it has taken place and what are the results. I want to know, and I think my question is in order as arising upon the Amendment why we should come to the rescue of Newfoundland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise. The hon. Member is not entitled to ask whether we should or should not be asked to come to the help of Newfoundland without consulting the Dominions, or whether we should consult the Dominions before we do so. He cannot raise the point of our relationship with the other Dominions on this Amendment, or whether we are obliged to come to the help of any of them in any circumstances.

Mr. BEVAN: But I am entitled to ask whether the condition of any Dominion is a collective matter for the Dominions; otherwise it would have to be shown that we have a special obligation to Newfoundland. The right hon. Gentleman has not made that clear. What he wishes to establish is that there shall be consultation between all the Dominions to discuss the Newfoundland position. I should like, therefore, to put the specific question to my right hon. Friend: In what respect are we bound to Newfoundland at this moment, so as to entitle us or oblige us to pass this Bill, which does not involve a similar obligation upon all the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question on this Amendment. This Amendment raises the point of whether or not the Dominions should be consulted. The House cannot go into the whole question of the relations between this country and the Dominions on this Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: But I understood that I am entitled to argue that we are in no more special a relationship to Newfoundland than is any other Dominion, and that consequently Newfoundland's plight is a collective concern of all the members
of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is the issue which has been raised, and also what form a consultation has taken. I understand that we are entitled to ask that, and I submit that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the question, to which he has not replied, whether such a consultation has taken place and what the results of it are?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the Secretary of State one question. He made it clear that we could not expect to have the opinion of the Dominions. That is clear, and I do not want any legal information on that subject. Canada is a very close neighbour of Newfoundland and there was a Canadian on the commission. Obviously, there has been no official approval by Canada in this matter, but I would like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman whether Canada approves of the action we are taking. From information I can get I gather that it is all right so far as Canada is concerned, but I think before anything is done we should have assurance that there has been no objection from the people of Canada which is a far closer neighbour to Newfoundland than we are. That is an assurance which can be given without committing anyone. If there is the good will of Canada behind this scheme, it means a good deal in future, and, if we can have that assurance, it will make the position under the Bill much easier for many people to accept.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That is not a question that ought to have been put. I ask the House to realise the implications of it. I pointed them out in my speech in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and I said clearly that, so far as the Government of this country were concerned, it was not our duty to consult the Dominions on a matter that was purely one between Newfoundland and ourselves. Let me repeat the broad facts. We with Canada made a temporary loan to Newfoundland to meet her obligations. The first contribution was a joint one between Canada and ourselves. The next contribution was by ourselves alone, because, as I explained to the House, Canada did not want to join in. That was explained to the House long ago. The appoint-
ment of the commission followed, and a Canadian was one of the commissioners. Newfoundland also appointed one representative. They not only, as report shows, visited Newfoundland, but they visited Canada, and they signed a unanimous report. The essence of that report was not whether the fishermen or the miners in Newfoundland would be called upon to pay the bondholders, but whether the British Government would relieve the Newfoundland people of this obligation.

Mr. MAXTON: No.

Mr. THOMAS: That was the issue. That is what this Bill is about. I am asked whether the British Government, in accepting a responsibility which we believe to be in the interests of Newfoundland, should not first consult the Dominions. My answer is that we have not consulted the Dominions for the obvious reason, as I have already pointed out, that the Dominions would say: "This is not a matter about which we should be consulted."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to make it clear, so that there should be no misunderstanding about what I said, that I stated that there could be no official consultation. That is clear, and there was no need for the long explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what I wanted to know. It is that the Canadians helped in the first loan and in the commission, and also that the commission went to Canada and made inquiries. We can, therefore, rest assured that as far as Canada is concerned, she can naturally give no approval one way or the other, but that there is no feeling in Canada that we are doing the wrong thing. If there had been any such feeling, it would have come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, but he has cleared up the position, and I am grateful to him for having done it. I am sorry if I caused him to make a long speech.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to enter into domestic differences between the hon. Gentleman and his leaders. Far be it from me to stir up strife between a follower and his leader. The point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is a real point, and one begins to wonder if the Dominions Secretary is not becoming a little con-
fused. He said that the Newfoundland Government asked us to take over these financial responsibilities. What the Government have undertaken is to make up any deficiency that the Newfoundland people cannot make up themselves. His statement about the fishermen is sheer nonsense, because they have got to find the money. It can be taken that a Government which cannot find more money for the means test will see to it that the fishermen will have to provide all they can. The real point is whether the other Dominions have any rights in this matter. Have they no interests which entitle them to be considered? The right hon. Gentleman knows what happened in the old trade union movement. I remember him at 'a Trades Union Congress laying down the proposition that a trade union might not be involved in a dispute, but because of the serious nature of the principle involved in the dispute other unions had a right to some consultation about it.
Have the Canadian Government or the New Zealand Government any rights to consideration in this matter? If you can take away the Government from the oldest Dominion, obviously that is a matter that interests every other Dominion. It is a matter of vital importance to them. If Newfoundland gives away its status, the other Dominions have a right to be considered, because they cannot 'allow even Newfoundland to give away her status in an easy fashion. I can imagine a town in this country prepared to give away its local government, and every other town in the country would be entitled to say: "We are not going to allow you to give away your local government, because, once you do it, our local government is in danger." The reason for this Amendment, which has not been met, is that once you allow this to happen in Newfoundland it can happen to any other Dominion. If I were in the position of New Zealand, I would take up the position that you were endangering the rights of the New Zealand Government.
This Amendment is of fundamental importance to the Empire, because you cannot allow one part of the Empire to be run with a commission without a serious position arising for every other part of
the Empire. It is common sense and good business to consult the other Dominions on this matter. A burden is likely to fall on the British taxpayer, but, if the Dominions had been consulted, their desire to keep the rights of self-government for each Dominion might have been so great that they would have come forward and offered to meet the financial liability jointly as an Empire instead of leaving it for Britain to do it alone. The Dominion Governments might have said that it would be a danger to allow the Constitution of Newfoundland to be held up, and they might have been prepared to meet the financial liability rather than that should happen.

7.27 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises how important are some of the things which he has said. The last Imperial Conference and the Statute of Westminster laid down a certain conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations, a conception of free nations in partnership; and anything that happens to that partnership, to diminish its size, or to alter the status of any one of the partners, must be a matter of vital concern to all the partners. It may be that before very long another partner will be raising difficulties as regards status within the Empire. The result of this Bill is that Newfoundland ceases to be a partner—of her own free will, as the right hon. Gentleman would say. That is doubtful, because it is merely an expression of the Government and not of the people. Assume for a moment, however, that it is of her own free will that she ceases to be a partner. That must be a matter of concern if the conception of the Commonwealth of the Nations is to continue.
The right hon. Gentleman says it has nothing to do with anyone except us and Newfoundland. Suppose Newfoundland had sold herself to America, which she might have done, for a financial loan from America. Suppose she had said to America: "You send in a commission to govern us; "—she could have done that if she had wished—"if you put up the money to pay the bondholders you can appoint the commission." Would the right hon. Gentleman have said then that it was a matter between America and Newfoundland and no concern of ours, that Newfoundland had a perfect liberty
to do that and the other members of the Commonwealth were not concerned? It raises a most extraordinary precedent to say that an arrangement such as this is a matter of no concern to other members of the partnership. It is raising an extremely dangerous precedent for this country, because we might have Canada and South Africa, or South Africa and Ireland, making an arrangement together which we in this country might think was not of advantage to us. They might arrange to go out of the Commonwealth together, and in such a case I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman saying: "This is a most profound matter of importance to this country, one in which we insist upon our rights of consultation."
He may say that in this case it does not very much matter about consulting with the other Dominions, but what he did say was, "This is a matter of no concern to the other Dominions, and they arc not entitled to be consulted on it "—a very different thing from saying it was not worth while. He is laying down a new principle in the Commonwealth of Nations by his speech here to-night. He is saying for the first time that the question whether one partner in that Commonwealth ceases to be a partner, whether she goes out or stays in, is not a matter of concern to the other partners, and I venture to suggest that he is laying down a doctrine which is as likely to break up the Empire as any doctrine he could lay down. I hope before the Debate is finished that he will at least make the point clear, so that it will not go out from him as a statement of His Majesty's Government that the departure of one of the Dominions from the Commonwealth of Nations is not the concern of the others. Because that is what is happening—it does not matter whether it goes out because it becomes a colony again, or an independent nation, or a dependency of America or of France, it is the act of passing out of the Commonwealth of Nations which is the vitally important act and which we think is a matter of vital concern to every one of the Dominions in this Commonwealth of Nations. We shall therefore certainly support this Amendment.

7.33 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not agree with the arguments put forward in favour of this Amendment, nor shall I
support it, but I think attention should be called from some other benches than those of the Opposition to the actual phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used. I hope that he or the Under-Secretary will see his way to explain it a little more fully. I do not for a moment think that this Committee ought to lay it down that this arrangement, which we on this side of the House believe has been entered into with the free will of the people of Newfoundland, needs the approval of the Dominions, but I must say that I should be very unwilling to see it go out from any responsible Minister in this House that the departure of one of the self-governing States from the Commonwealth of British Nations or the British Empire, whichever people may prefer to call it, is no concern of the others. I would really beg the right hon. Gentleman—though I do not wish to be pompous—to be extremely careful in his use of language. Surely the proper way to put it is that it is not necessary to ask for the approval of the Dominions when an arrangement has been entered into, freely and willingly on both sides, between two States of the Empire; but to say it is no concern of the Dominions when one nation ceases to be a Dominion is not going to strengthen but to weaken the right hon. Gentleman's hands in another controversy which he is carrying on. It is the concern of the other Dominions when any one of the Dominions ceases to have Dominion status or goes outside the Empire, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not stick to that phrase—I am sorry to use a slang—that it was no concern of the others.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I respond at once to the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) about the phrase which, incidentally, my hon. Friend the Noble Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was not in the House to hear.

Earl WINTERTON: No. but I heard of it.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, we had better face the situation and be frank. I only regret that the Noble Lord was not in the House, because he would then have understood exactly what has taken place. If he had been in the House, I think he would have reflected very much before
he gave the lecture he has just delivered. I am as jealous as he is of Imperial interests.

Earl WINTERTON: I never suggested that you were not. I only asked you to withdraw an unfortunate phrase.

Mr. THOMAS: I only wish the Noble Lord had known the full circumstances, and for his benefit, and that of other Members in the Committee, before we talk of withdrawing I had better recapitulate the situation. An Amendment was moved the effect of which was to say that we should consult the Dominions. I gave reasons why that was not necessary. I did not suggest for one moment, and do not suggest—if any words of mine conveyed that impression—that the Dominions were indifferent to a question of this kind. That is the last thing I intended to imply. They could not be indifferent, for the very good and sufficient reason that Canada was first asked by us to join in the guarantee to Newfoundland, and we consulted the Canadian Government about the appointment of the Commission; all of which shows, and proves conclusively, that I did not intend to convey any feeling of indifference. Let me correct that at once. Still, we feel that to accept that at once. Still, we feel that to accept an Amendment which would make it a condition that other self-governing Dominions should themselves undertake a part of this responsibility, under the Statute of Westminster, or even through an Imperial Conference, would be to ask them to undertake a responsibility which, I said earlier, I believe they would resent. I repeat that I am not going to have it suggested for one moment that I would assume that any Dominion was indifferent to the welfare of Newfoundland, and would not wish her God speed and a return of her old Constitution.

Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I gather that the effect of his somewhat elaborate explanation is that he agrees that the phrase, "No concern of theirs," was an unfortunate one.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Recapitulation is the order of the day, but I do not want to prolong this Debate unduly, because I have other Amendments which are of
much more concern to me than this one. I was raising in this Amendment an issue which I thought was of high Imperial concern. I do not care one brass farthing whether the Empire goes to smithereens or not—the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in that—but the Amendment gives me the opportunity of pointing out that in this House of Commons, with a Dominions Secretary whose reputation is that of being a revolutionary Socialist and who, if I remember aright, was the prime leader of the General Strike, the Conservatives, who are concerned about the maintenance of the Empire, who tell the people of this country that the maintenance of the Empire is the overriding consideration, have left the Dominions Secretary entirely on his own. The discussion as to what repercussions this happening in one corner of the Empire may have on the rest of the communities within the Empire is left to the Opposition and the revolutionary Dominions Secretary; the other elements in the House think it is a matter of complete indifference. While the right hon. Gentleman may now, in response to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) minimise the force of what he said earlier, the impression he left on my mind was precisely the same as was left on the minds of others, that no Dominion other than Great Britain has any concern with any Imperial matter unless it is itself involved in that matter, that no Dominion has a right to a general interest in the Empire except Great Britain. That was the statement of the position as I heard it from the Dominions Secretary.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it suggested that the Governments of the other Dominions have no care for the bondholders?

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend raises another point. I do not know where the Newfoundland bonds are held, and I do not know how they are held. The question which comes before us is one of important political concern. The right hon. Gentleman jested because I had made a technical mistake in putting into my Amendment the; Statute of Westminster, but I understood, and the reading of the Statute bears it out, that although there is no machinery within its
four walls for doing what I asked should be done, yet the basic principle of the Statute of Westminster is to establish a joint responsibility for the whole and an equality of partnership among the constituent elements. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that not even as a matter of courtesy will the big change proposed in this Bill be submitted to the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, Africa or Ireland. This is the declaration of policy now—that when any two Dominions, Great Britain not necessarily being one of them, make a bargain to follow a certain course of conduct, none of the others, including Great Britain, has got anything to do with it. That is the doctrine as enunciated to-day, and, as I say, it is a doctrine which I am quite pleased to have, and I shall watch with very great interest the future running of the British Empire on that basis.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. A. RAMSAY: I only intervene because the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) thought it necessary to suggest that the Dominions Secretary had no support from the Government side of the Committee and that the only interest in this Amendment came from the Opposition. I suggest two reasons why more Government supporters have not spoken; the first is the regard we have for Parliamentary time in view of the number of Amendments which remain, and the second is because the issues seem so plain and open to us. The subtleties to which we have been listening in the last hour can only have been discovered by those who were looking for them.
What view will the plain man take of this question? It has been magnified into an issue involving the disintegration of the British Empire. What nonsense. Surely the position is just this: One of our Dominions, through bad government, has got itself into a position of difficulty from which it cannot extricate itself. Can the Opposition, and the hon. and learned Gentleman upon their Front Bench who is so concerned in this Debate for democratic government—but not outside the House—adduce any evidence that the Dominions have been rushing forward to assume financial liability for Newfoundland? Of course not. The Government have had to come to the House on two occasions, and finally they have had
to produce a Bill which I am certain they did not want to produce.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. The reason why I did not deal with the matter to which he refers was because it would not have been in order to cover such a wide ground.

Mr. RAMSAY: I am perfectly ready to agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have dealt with it if it had been in order. A Dominion has got into difficulties, and we have said: "For a temporary and limited period we shall assume your financial responsibility. We wish you well. When you are able to effect good government through an improvement in the moral sense of the community, and when you are able to assume your own burdens, we will hand it back willingly and completely, and will congratulate you upon the departure that you have made." The particular charge is that, having assumed this responsibility, we should have gone round to the various Dominions and have asked them to permit us to do so. I suggest that the House is not taking this question seriously and that the objection savours very much of, shall I say, Parliamentary obstruction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it be obstruction, while there are hon. Members in the House who will enjoy the by-play, there will be many people outside who will be inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that some modification in our Parliamentary system is necessary.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) has been accusing us of obstruction and of delaying the proceedings. We are treating this matter really seriously. I remember one of the best legal arguments that I have heard in this House being made during the Debate upon the Statute of Westminster by an hon. Member on the Front Bench below the Gangway, and I remember that hon. Member obtaining support from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). If I remember correctly, the argument postulated exactly what has happened now, namely, that when something happened, such as has taken place in the case of Newfoundland, we should
be obliged to carry the baby. That is what we were told, and the suggestion was strongly opposed. I should have thought that the Dominions would have been greatly interested in this matter. Some people are saying that the money which has been given and which is to be given for the next three years, and the £17,500,000 plus £1,000,000 interest, are all for the purpose of assisting the bondholders. Quite a number of hon. Members may question that. Others may think that the reason why we are so much concerned about Newfoundland is that it is one of the strategic points, perhaps for a new Transatlantic cable.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is straying rather widely from the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought that I was meeting some of the arguments that have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am quite prepared to be put in order on this matter. We read in the report that Canada was asked if she was prepared to bear some of this burden. It seems very singular that she should not have been ready to do so. We are faced with a situation comparable to that which has been described by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Ireland may take advantage of it. She has perhaps already done so to a partial extent, but she may go still further. Statements made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions some time ago suggested by inference that Mr. de Valera might find that advantage could be taken of it. South Wales might, as a consequence, find itself in a worse plight than it is at present, by the loss of its coal trade. I am hoping that hon. Members, and particularly Government supporters, who are always talking about Imperialism, will realise the gravity of the present situation, and that they will rise in their places and help us to save the Empire about which they talk so much, but which, apparently, they are not making much contribution to save.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I should not have intervened at this stage of the proceedings, although I should have done so certainly later on, as I have an Amendment of my own, if it had not been for the extraordinary speech made by the hon. Mem-
ber for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay). We are faced with a very important Bill affecting the constitution of the British Empire in many ways. This matter has a very unsavoury past which we all very deeply regret. All of that is deeply disliked by many Conservative supporters of the Government, as anybody knows who talks to them, and I have no doubt that the Government themselves regret very greatly having to introduce the Measure. To suggest, in a situation of this kind, that the Bill should not be discussed from every possible point of view, is an attitude which the House will not tolerate, and the more suggestions of that kind, the longer this Debate will go on.

Mr. A. RAMSAY: I do not think that the hon. Member is in a position to judge my speech or others, and to place them in their context, in view of the fact that he has just come into the House for the first time during the discussion of this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: I am perfectly in order in expressing my views with such knowledge as I have. It is true that I have not been here all through this Debate, but I was here during the Second Reading. I took part in that, and I have taken a very great interest in this question. If the hon. Gentleman's example is followed by many supporters of the Government, we are in for a very long all-night sitting. The lion. Gentleman quoted what seemed to me a very disputable statement that all that is to happen is that we are to put Newfoundland on her feet and in a good financial position, and then to hand things back to the same Government, the same gang of crooks—there is no other description for them—who have recently been in control. I hope that that is an entirely wrong reading of the situation. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with me, but I do not see the present representative system being handed back to Newfoundland for a very long time. Their Government have shown themselves unfit to administer the system under present conditions, and I cannot think that the present situation can be gone back upon. I believe that the future situation of Newfoundland and of its Government—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now seems to be anticipating the speech which he hopes to deliver at a later stage.

Mr. MANDER: If I had had an opportunity of saying two or three more words I think that you would have seen that my remarks were in order, because I was going to say that I believe that the future destiny of the Colony of Newfoundland will be a matter that very closely concerns the various Dominions of the British Empire. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that certain conversations have taken place with Canada. I certainly think that we ought to consider very seriously whether Canada ought not to take over the whole responsibility for Newfoundland. I may not go into that matter any further, as I am sure that it will be debated at a later stage of the proceedings.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in difficulties. He is faced with criticisms from all sides; in front of him and behind him. He has had a very nasty dust-up with some hon. Members behind him, and he has not come out of it unscathed. Even his ability has not enabled him to do that. He has been attacked from here, and I have no doubt that he will next be attacked from there. I want to rally to his support. I assure him that I think his attitude is right, and that this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted. I am sure that he will agree with me—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Strange bed-fellows in distress.

Mr. MANDER: —that the right constitutional point of view is that every Dominion in the British Empire, theoretically and before this situation arose, had an absolutely equal interest in Newfoundland. South Africa and New Zealand had just as much right to do a deal and to help Newfoundland as we have, but it so happened that we were the only element in the British Empire which was prepared to come to her rescue. In those circumstances, as we have made a deal, or are proposing to make a deal, whether we think it is a good one or not, it affects us, and no other State in the British Empire. I think that that is the situation. It may be thought—

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does the hon. Member take the view that the position of Newfoundland affects us any more than it affects South Africa?

Mr. MANDER: I am simply dealing with the constitutional point of view. I say again that it was open to any one of the British Dominions to have made a deal similar to this, with Newfoundland. We were the only country to do it, wisely or unwisely, and therefore it concerns us, and does not concern them at all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? Is he suggesting that going out of the Commonwealth is no concern of the other Members of the Commonwealth except Great Britain?.

Mr. MANDER: The situation of Newfoundland is entirely different. Newfoundland is not a Dominion. It is not a member of the League of Nations.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman must excuse me, but Newfoundland, in Section 1 of the Statute of Westminster, is defined as a Dominion.

Mr. MANDER: It is not a Dominion in the same sense. It is not a separate member of the League of Nations. All the other Dominions are.

Mr. MAXTON: That is a new test for membership of the British Empire.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the theory this, that unless a Dominion joins the League of Nations it is not a Dominion? In other words, is the trade union card for membership of the British Empire to be membership of the League of Nations?

Mr. MANDER: I am saying that the position of Newfoundland in the British Empire—of which she is the oldest Colony—is not quite the same as that of the other Dominions because she is not a member of the League of Nations. That is the point that I am making. None the less I want to rally whole-heartedly to the support of the Government.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to examine the attitude of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) a little further. I understood that in the British Commonwealth the Dominions—someone referred to them as "our Dominions," which is a rather curious phrase going back to the time when they were our Colonies—were a body of States collaborating on equal terms. Is it really contended that the departure of one of those
States makes no difference to the group? The hon. Member has been talking about the League of Nations. Would it be a matter of no concern to other nations in the League if some rich State paid the debts of one of the many indebted States, and if in return that State disappeared from the League? The whole point of the British Empire is that it is a group of States. How far is this to go? For instance, what should we think if New Zealand were taken over by Australia and disappeared? From the point of view of the other Dominions, it makes a good deal of difference in the balance between the different Dominions, and I really think that the hon. Member, if he reflects upon it, will see that the point is a very serious one. I am surprised that the Hon.

Member is now supporting the Government having previously opposed on the same point. I can only understand his attitude on the assumption that this is his day for supporting the Government. There was something said last night about the bugle giving an uncertain sound. I think that the discrepancy was due to the fact that yesterday was an odd and to-day an even day; the hon. Member supports the Government on the even days. If that is the explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will have rather to moderate his transports over this unexpected accession of support.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 208.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[8.4 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson. John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Saltar, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Grimston, R. V.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, Thomas A.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooke, Douglas
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Harbord. Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crossley, A. C.
Hartland, George A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford;


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Holdsworth. Herbert


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Denville, Alfred
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dickie, John p.
Hornby, Frank


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Drewe, Cedric
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Howard, Tom Forrest


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dunglass, Lord
Hume. Sir George Hopwood


Blindell, James
Eastwood, John Francis
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Borodale, Viscount
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hurd, Sir Percy


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emmott, Charles E. G. C
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jamieson. Douglas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Janner, Barnett


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Jennings. Roland


Burghley, Lord
Ford. Sir Patrick J.
Jones, Sir G. w. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fraser, Captain Ian
Ker, J. Camobell


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Knox, Sir Alfred


Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Cadogan. Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leckle, J. A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Leech. Dr. J. W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Christie, James Archibald
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Strauss, Edward A.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Pybus, Percy John
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwlch)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McKeag, William
Ramsay, Capt. A, H. M. (Midlothian)
Summersby, Charles H.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ray, Sir William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Magnay, Thomas
Rea, Walter Russell
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Remer, John R.
Thompson, Luke


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rickards, George William
Titchfield, Major the Marcuess of


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Robinson, John Roland
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ropner, Colonel L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
White, Henry Graham


Morrison, William Shepherd
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Moss, Captain H. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Scone, Lord
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nunn, William
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & KInc'dinc, C.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Penny, Sir George
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Petherick, M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Pickering, Ernest H.
Spens, William Patrick



Potter, John
Stourton, Hon. John J.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the special Commission of Government so set up shall be required to secure the assent of the House of Commons to any financial proposals imposing taxation upon the people of Newfoundland, and that any taxpayer or body of taxpayers shall be given opportunity to make representations to the House of Commons for the amendment or rejection of such proposals.
I think that this proposal is very important from one or two aspects. We must remember that the United States of America was at one time a Colony of Britain, and the real reason why we lost the United States was over the question of representation and taxation. That was really the kernel, the main structure, of the quarrel. In this Amendment we ask that, before taxation is levied, the House of Commons shall be consulted as to the nature of that taxation, and that the people who have to find the taxation shall be allowed, before the tax becomes operative, to make any suggestions that they think fit for either its modification or its rejection.
Whatever else may be said about the proposal, it cannot be accused of being unfair. Since I have been in the House of. Commons I have constantly heard the phrase repeated, "taxation and representation." If a person pays taxes, at least he should be entitled to some form
of representation. These people, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, are responsible for raising the interest and principal payments in respect of this, comparatively speaking, large sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has already pointed out that there are fewer than 70,000 wealth producers to meet the interest and principal payments on £20,000,000—a very considerable drain, especially when one considers that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton pointed out, the total population of Newfoundland is only about a quarter of the population of Glasgow or Birmingham or Liverpool. They have to meet this huge burden without any great resources and without machinery or equipment, and it must be a terrible struggle. One can easily see that this body which is to be set up under the Constitution must impose taxation. Certain people will feel, quite rightly, that the taxation is not of an equitable character. Indeed, in the case of almost every tax that I have seen imposed somebody has felt that it was not just.
In this case, all the greater care must be exercised because the various constitutional Governments of the past in Newfoundland have not been very equitable in their treatment of the poor people, and it may well be that the powers of this body may be used to impose taxa-
tion in such a way as to make the lives of the poor people of the Island almost intolerable. What is fairer than that, before a tax operates, the House of Commons shall be consulted about it and shall hear representations from the people affected? What guarantee have we that the taxation that is levied may not be unjust? There is no curb on the activities of this body, and there is no one for them to approach if the burden becomes impossible. A body which they do not elect and over which they have no control decrees their taxation. All we are saying is that, in the absence of any other body, the House of Commons ought to be given a say as to the kind of taxation to be imposed and that some channel should be open for them to make representations.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the taxation of Newfoundland is not our job, but these are terrible powers to be given without a check. It is almost a matter of life and death. They might make the taxation so severe as almost to take away the livelihood of a section of the people. Surely it is not too much, when so much is involved, to ask that the House of Commons should discuss the kind of taxation, leaving their own domestic problems alone. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept our first proposition, what compromise can he offer us as to the way these people can have their representations heard? This body that is being set up has immense powers. When men get dictatorial power they are apt to become different from what they were before. There is no guarantee here of any personal approach if the people of Newfoundland feel that the proposals are harsh. Obviously, they cannot come across here and see the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been as well in some of our other problems if we had had some machinery of easy approach; for instance, in the case of the Victorian settlers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit of the Amendment, because we feel genuinely alarmed at the absence of any democratic rights. A taxpayer is entitled to have some check on abuses that may be imposed upon him.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I support the Amendment, but not in any spirit of wishing to cause Parliamentary obstruction. The
Government have taken over the administration of the Colony's finances, and the responsibility rests upon us to deal with them as we should deal with our own people. The argument used on the Second Reading was that we should back these people up, because they are part and parcel of us, and in the Great War they provided regiments and fought shoulder to shoulder with our people and did exactly what our own people did. They have got into difficulties, and the Legislature has handed over to this country for the time being the powers that it ought to exercise. The Government of this country is represented to me through the House of Commons, and any responsibilty for any financial change ought to have expression through the voice of the House of Commons.
This Amendment tries to do that. It wants to give the same rights to the people of Newfoundland as we have here: that is, to express themselves at any time that they feel that unjust taxation is being put upon them. I am not assuming that these six commissioners will not act rightly and fairly. We say that about Ministers of the Crown, but we criticise them if we are not satisfied with what they are doing. The people of Newfoundland ought to be able to say to the House of Commons, "We are not satisfied with the way this taxation is being put on," and then the duty would devolve upon us to deal with their appeal. I do not see how any objection can be taken to an Amendment of this kind. It would at least give to the people of Newfoundland the idea that the Mother Country was paying the closest attention to their welfare and that it was not satisfied to leave full control entirely to the commissioners but desired to ensure that, if at any time anything went seriously wrong, there should be some expression in the House of Commons. The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) are well worth consideration. They certainly appeal to me. When I looked at the Amendment I had no idea what line of argument the hon. Member would follow, but after hearing him and examining the Amendment, I am confident that there is substance in it and that it ought to have some recognition from the Government.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one could take exception to the spirit in which the Amendment was moved and supported. Briefly, I understand the object of the Amendment to be to ensure that before the commissioners impose any taxation upon Newfoundland the proposed taxation shall be subject, first of all, to review by this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the main, yes.

Mr. THOMAS: I think that the hon. Member will agree that that is the broad general principle of it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On representation by the taxpayers as a body.

Mr. THOMAS: The Mover of the Amendment must have known what he meant, and he has already accepted my interpretation. He will be the first to observe that in a previous Amendment on the Order Paper in his name which was ruled out of order, he set out that:
The immediate duty of the special Commission of Government, referred to in paragraph (6)"—
and so on, is—
to make provision, as the first charge on the revenues of Newfoundland, for payments to be made to unemployed men and women, and people in need of public assistance, in Newfoundland on the basis of the rates of payment made to people in similar circumstances in the United Kingdom.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMAS: I will illustrate the analogy between that position and the Amendment which is now being moved. Had the first Amendment of my hon. Friend been in order, and if the Committee had accepted the Amendment, it would have said that the first charge on Newfoundland taxation or revenue was that the same rates of pay should be applicable to all unemployed in Newfoundland as were applicable here. That, of course, in itself would have been almost an impossibility for the obvious reason that the standards would be different whether by means test or by any other test. But for my purpose I merely point out that there it was intended to show that the people of Newfoundland—

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in discussing an Amendment which you have ruled out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can make out, the right hon. Gentleman is only using it as an illustration in his reply, and I do not think that he is out of order at present.

Mr. THOMAS: The Amendment is in the names of the hon. Gentlemen, and I am merely endeavouring to show the inconsistency which would render it impossible for me to accept the Amendment. I repeat—and I am putting it fairly to the Committee—that if that proposal were accepted the first duty of the commissioners would have been to have said, "Never mind what the revenue may be, unemployment benefit must be paid to you in Newfoundland on the same scale as in England." The proposal which I am asked to accept is that before any revenue can be obtained, and before the commissioners can obtain any revenue in order to administer Newfoundland, the proposals, whatever they may be, must be subject to the approval of this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMAS: I put it to my hon. Friend when he talks about abuse, that there are many men both he and I know who are different men when they get power from what they were formerly. He and I have seen that sort of thing very often. It is not limited to any one class, and no greater mistake was ever made than assuming that a monopoly of virtue was vested in one class. My hon. Friend's point was that he wanted if he could to save an abuse.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: All I can say to him is that I do not think that the proposal would be practicable. I do not think that it would be fair. There has been common agreement in this House that we want the Constitution to be restored as soon as possible. I have already said that we must trust the commissioners. If you are to say, in addition to that, that the House of Commons must be the one body which must sanction the expenditure of this island, or to be the final judge as to the taxation to be imposed, I would ask any Member of the House: "Would he like to undertake that responsibility?"

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: It is the best thing to do.

Mr. THOMAS: The commissioners are on the spot. They are appointed for the work and are there with the full knowledge of all the circumstances, and I refuse to believe that there can be anybody in this House sufficiently acquainted with all the circumstances as the commissioners would be who could arrive at so fair a decision.

Mr. BUCHANAN: To-day we are legislating on a far bigger thing than on taxation. We are legislating on the life of this Dominion. We are doing it here. We are doing it on the recommendation of a committee. We are only asking for a comparatively small thing. The Commission have made recommendations, and we ought to be the judge of them, that is all.

Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will be the first to realise that, while legislating in the sense that we are affecting their future position, no attempt is being made by the Government or anyone else, either in a resolution or in an Amendment, to lay down the conditions governing the everyday life and circumstances of the people. It is an entirely different thing. I put it to my hon. Friend fairly, that all we can promise is, first, that in the selection of the commissioners no politics and no influence of any sort or kind will determine the position. Every effort will be made to select the best men for a very difficult and responsible task. Secondly, we want to give Newfoundland a fair chance. Nothing could be more absurd than to say, in advance: "No matter what your knowledge and experience may be, after being there for months, we in the House of Commons must be the determining authority." That would not be fair to the commissioners and it would not be fair to Newfoundland. I think it would destroy that very democratic spirit which we discussed on an earlier Amendment, when it was said that we want to keep in the minds of the people of Newfoundland the knowledge that some day they will have their constitution restored. If we were to adopt the Amendment, it would destroy that spirit, and for these and other reasons I am unable to accept it.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a most extraordinary reply consisting of a mass of irrelevancies. We had a wholly irrelevant discussion on another Amendment which
was out of order, and we have had a mass of irrelevancies about expenditure. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is not thinking of expenditure, but of taxation. All that he does in the Amendment is to deal with taxation. The right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about conditions of this sort and that sort, but he never referred to the points of the Amendment. We are not concerned in this Amendment as to whether there is to be any control over expenditure, but what is to be the kind of taxation the commission will impose and what will be the distribution of the taxation between the different classes of the community. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment rightly pointed out the great constitutional importance of the question of taxation and representation. The right hon. Gentleman's reply is: "We are going to have excellent people, excellent dictators, and we must trust them." That is the kind of proposition that Charles I might have put up. He would have said: "Here are two excellent men, Strafford and Laud, and I am going to trust them entirely. It is absurd to think that this House should have any control." That is exactly the Stuart position.
The right hon. Gentleman is taking a line which is very curious on the part of a man who has held the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies. Through the Secretary of State for the Colonies we keep control over Colonies all over the world, and we have an opportunity of dealing, through the Secretary of State, with the Governors and with estimates of one kind and another. It must be remembered that in this Bill this Parliament is taking very serious financial responsibilities. We have to make up whatever cannot be found by taxation. Why should we not have some say in regard to the taxation? The right hon. Gentleman may say: "You cannot have this House dealing in that way with another country, because that other country has been a self-governing Dominion." I gathered that that was the purport of his last observation. I would remind him that in this House every year we do the same thing with regard to a part of the British Empire which has been self-governing for a 2reat deal longer period than Newfoundland—the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Customs Bill comes before us every year, and there is no reason why the Budget to be put for-
ward by the commissioners in Newfoundland should not come before this House for discussion.
There is another important point of view which the Government spokesmen conveniently ignore, and that is that the Newfoundland fishermen have been subjected to the most vicious form of capitalism and moneylending. We have it in evidence that there has been corruption in the Island, and there is a state of affairs there where owing to the property qualification the wealthier classes rule. We want to know where the money that this House is going to put up is going to be expended. Unless we know what the taxation is going to be we cannot know what proportion will be placed upon the merchants and the moneylenders and what proportion will be put upon the fishermen and agriculturists. Until we have that information we cannot judge how the money that this House is providing is going to be spent. I think that the Amendment might bo amended, to include the words "any taxpayer or body of taxpayers in Newfoundland," and that the proposal is perfectly sound and in line with all the traditions of this House, and would be a mitigation of the extreme action that is being taken with Newfoundland. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the matter had better be left to the commissioners, without too close an observation by this House. I believe that Newfoundland under a commission such as is proposed would be glad that its Budget of taxation should be open to discussion in this House and that they should have protection drawn from the various classes of society, poor men as well as rich men, on the Floor of this House, to see that whatever taxation is imposed the fishermen and the poor people should have a square deal, which I do not think they have had hitherto.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet us on this matter. The Amendment is not moved for the sake of obstructing, or creating difficulties, or delaying the passage of the Measure into law. We would have preferred that the Bill had not been introduced in this form, but on failing to secure that we have endeavoured to see that the people of Newfoundland should have an opportunity of giving their assent to it. We failed in that effort, and now we are asking the
right hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to concede to those people—from whom everything in the way of political rights is being taken as far as the internal affairs of their Island is concerned—that the annual Budget proposals affecting the islanders of Newfoundland shall be made available in this House. While discussion in this House would not be as satisfactory as discussion on the Budget proposals in Newfoundland, it would be a substitute and would give an opportunity of criticism and would shed the light of publicity on the financial proposals of the commissioners.
I could not make the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman about our out-of-order Amendment on unemployment insurance. That was an effort to secure that while the people of Newfoundland were making big efforts to meet their liabilities outside, their first basic human need should be secured. I cannot see what was wrong with that or where the illogical, contradictory nature of these two Amendments arises. I would rather the people of Newfoundland made the conditions themselves, but the right hon. Gentleman has decided that they are not to be allowed to manage their own affairs and that the management is to be transferred from St. Johns to Westminster. I endeavoured to secure them some power in a former Amendment; and now when I am endeavouring to provide some safeguard against excessive taxation, perhaps not excessive taxation but an unfair incidence of taxation, the right hon. Gentleman wants to know if my unemployment benefit in Newfoundland would be subjected to a means test. My means test was in another Amendment which I regret has been ruled out of order. It was not to be applied to the fishermen of Newfoundland but to the drawers of interest on the bonds. Failing to move these Amendments we arc pressing on (he right hon. Gentleman the necessity in some way of providing some check at this end over the expenditure and the revenue of Newfoundland.
The right hon. Gentleman says it must be left to the Commission on the spot. Do I understand from that that he himself is going to have no check on the expenditure or taxation which the commission will impose on these islanders? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman at any moment if he will tell me
his position in this matter. Is he going to give up his ordinary powers as Dominion Secretary? He appoints a commission, sends it out to Newfoundland and says, "There, you go and take over the powers which I give to you and exercise them as you please in the realm of taxation, I shall not interfere with you during the continuation of the commission." In refusing this Amendment he is also rejecting the House of Commons. I want to know whether he also rejects himself as a supervising authority with the same contempt that he rejects the House of Commons. Is he putting himself completely out of action in regard to these six supermen, who are to be chosen without regard to political influences and for all the lofty reasons we hear about in such selections but which are not quite so evident in the men after they are selected. Will he expect these commissioners to give him regular and steady reports of their operations in Newfoundland, of their financial dealings in Newfoundland? Will he expect an annual statement of expenditure and revenue to be submitted to him? If he will answer these questions now it might save time. Or perhaps he has not had time to give them any consideration so far; perhaps these questions have not arisen in the Government's consideration of this problem.

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper he will see that his points are covered.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the precise nature of the provision?

Mr. THOMAS: In paragraphs 2 and 4 of page 4 of the White Paper.'

Mr. MAXTON: But the reports, when they have been submitted to him, are they to remain confidential documents in a safe in the Dominions Office? In the course of the Second Reading Debate he told me that questions in this House would be in order about the internal affairs of Newfoundland. If these financial reports are submitted to him as laid down in the White Paper I shall certainly be in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the House the contents of the reports. But will he on the statement he has just made answer
me that these are private and confidential matters between himself and the commissioners and that I as a Member of the House of Commons have nothing to do with them? That is all I can get out of his reply.
There seems to be a contradiction. Let me put it this way; that the right hon. Gentleman, in so far as this particular bit of work is concerned in connection with the administration of the Dominions Office, is putting himself outside criticism by the House of Commons. In other words, he is trying to get for these Newfoundland commissioners the same status that the Minister of Labour got for the commissioners he put into Durham. He says that whatever these people do they are responsible to me, not to you, and you are. not allowed to ask any question whatever about their operations in Durham. That was the Minister of Labour's attitude on that matter. I want to know, and I am going to stick on my feet until I have some measure of satisfaction or until the Government take appropriate measures to stop me, in explicit terms precisely whether I as a Member of this House will be able to raise the operations of the commission in so far as they are empowered by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Bill to impose taxation upon the people. Our Amendment provides a perfectly simple and easy way. There can be no difficulty in carrying it out. There need be no tremendous or acrimonious Debate.
It is one of the commonest forms of Ministerial reply in this House, when one is asking for Parliamentary control of this, that or something else, for the Minister to say, "You must trust the man on the spot." The right hon. Gentleman asks me to trust these commissioners, whom I do not yet know, three of them to be chosen by him—of course we have a fair measure of confidence in that choice, though, mark you, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do it on advice, and I am not quite so sure that I can trust the advice—and three to be chosen by someone else whom I do not know, by, I think, the Government that has abdicated because it was unfit to run its own island but is fit to choose three men who are capable of running it.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "You must trust the unknown six to be fair
in their taxation." I have very great respect for these unknown men, but this may seem strange to the right hon. Gentleman—I have a greater trust in myself, and a very great confidence in the House of Commons, at least to the extent that while injustices may be perpetuated even with a House of Commons in existence, they are not perpetuated in silence. The injustice, if it is done, is publicly known. It is not the torture of the secret chamber; it is not Star Chamber methods of taxation. That is what this proposal is, unless there is some way in which the full light of publicity can be shone on the financial proposals of the commissioners.
We are asking for two things in this Amendment. One is that there shall be an annual opportunity by the laying of the proposed Budget statement of Newfoundland on the Table of this House. Everyone knows that this House, in circumstances like these, does not attempt to go into any miserable niggling criticism of the details of a proposal. It is one of the characteristics of the House. The tendency is all the other way. Big proposals, if they are far away from home, are dealt with in a very lordly fashion. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not have any fear that the presentation of the Newfoundland Budget to this House would result in attempts to alter the minor details. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman could arrange that it be presented in such a way that amendment of minor details would be impossible, that we would be empowered only to reject it, and throw it back to the Newfoundland people in the event of it containing proposals that were obviously unfair and inequitable.
That is one aspect. We ask that one definite Parliamentary opportunity per annum be offered for discussion of the Newfoundland Budget. The other thing that we are asking is that, failing a Parliament over there, failing any form of representative government in Newfoundland, there shall be established some definite chance by which aggrieved taxpayers in Newfoundland may voice their objections to the commission's proposals, and have their objections forwarded to the quarters that are influential. The right hon. Gentleman did not treat the Amendment rightly. I do not think he played fair. I have seen him engaged in this House in many Committee fights.
Indeed I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will agree with me that during the 1924 to 1929 Parliament the only occasion when we felt ourselves in complete harmony with the right hon. Gentleman was when he was engaged in these fights, leading the Labour party at that time. But he will be bound to admit that always on those occasions he expected from the Government of the day reasonable concessions to a reasonable proposal moderately put. That is what is being put to him now—a reasonable proposal in moderate and reasonable terms. But in a most perfunctory manner the right hon. Gentleman tried to score a debating point against the hon. Member for Gorbals, on the question of unemployment insurance, and did not answer the essence of our case at all.
I ask him to accept this Amendment in the form in which it is moved, or, failing his ability to do that, to secure the same end by a revised form of words. I know that in the time of the Labour Government, when the Government were beaten flat on the logic of a case and had to admit that the case for an Amendment was unanswerable, as this one is, they would say, "Well, we are deeply impressed by the representations made to us, and although this Amendment is not properly drafted we promise that we will bring in new words or by some other means meet the wishes of the hon. Member." I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to accept the wording of this Amendment, which I think is as good as he will get, or, if he wishes to do so, to consult his officials and to say the same thing in different words. We shall not have the slightest objection.
The essential thing for which we ask in this Amendment is that this House of Commons shall have the opportunity of reviewing the financial operations of the commission which the right hon. Gentleman is going to appoint to rule Newfoundland—that this House shall have the opportunity, if necessary, of dictating to its dictators. Secondly we ask that the right hon. Gentleman shall take steps in Newfoundland to ensure for the people there at least an annual opportunity of examining the taxation burdens which they are being asked to bear and some constitutional means by which their
views on proposed taxation can be referred to the people in authority here. Those proposals represent the bare minimum upon which a House of Commons with any sense of decency ought to insist. I had hoped that by this time the right hon. Gentleman would have risen—[Interruption]. I hope that nobody will dare me, because the Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended and I have no pressing engagement until 1.30 p.m. to-morrow when I hope to catch the train to Scotland. If any effort of mine can do anything to make the lot of the men out there less intolerable than I think it is being made by the proposals before us, I am going to make that effort. I believe that this Measure is riveting chains on the workers of Newfoundland—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the commissioners have the power to raise taxes upon food and clothing and things of that sort?

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will not be led away by a question of that kind.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has told my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that he must trust the commission. So long as they get the money, it does not matter from which part of the fisherman's body they cut off the pound of flesh. We are riveting chains on these men. For 60 years their labour is to be mortgaged to make good the admitted defalcations of dishonest politicians.

Mr. HOWARD: The price of democracy.

Mr. MAXTON: No. it is the price of a careless democracy and all I am doing here is to try to get the British House of Commons to take its political responsibilities a little more seriously than the Newfoundland House of Commons took theirs. It was a wise man who said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Democracy depends on vigilance. It depends on men being prepared to stand up and protest against invasions of liberty when the majority are inclined to be happy-go-lucky about it and to say that "it does not matter." We are often told, "Do not worry about this matter or that matter. It is too small." These
things are always too small for consideration until they are all added up, and then the total is too big to be dealt with.
I am going to try as far as I can to get this little measure of precaution and safety for these men. If they are to be tied down to giving the first fruits of their labour for 60 years in the payment of debts which they have not created, I am going to do my best to ensure that they shall have some say as to where the chains are to bear heaviest on them. That is all I am asking. If heavy taxation is to be imposed on the toil of these men, there should be some way in which they can voice their views as to how that taxation shall bear upon different sections of the people and different aspects of their lives. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "You must trust the commissioners." I do not, because I do not know them. I cannot trust anything I do not know, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to choose the six finest men in the British Empire I should still insist that their work was due to be reviewed, not by supermen, but by ordinary men who can put themselves in the place of the ordinary taxpayers.
I honestly think that the proposal to place taxation in the hands of six men, independent of all control by Parliament or by the people of Newfoundland, is going back to Star Chamber methods of government. It is retrailing the reactionary road, it is going back on the whole history of progress that this House has made for something like 500 years. The present House of Commons is prepared to go back on all that in a night. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals referred to the American War of Independence and the "No taxation, no representation" basis of that war. I suppose it is too far back now to worry about, but for many, many years the underlying lesson that was taught there was not forgotten in this House, and as far as I know this is the first occasion when we are deliberately taking a backward step. These are not coloured people. Perhaps I ought to explain that the natives of Newfoundland are not black men, or yellow, or some inferior breed. These are men of English, Scottish, Irish, and even Welsh descent. and though perhaps some of them have deteriorated, like others, by absence from their own soil, none the less they are people of exactly
the same type as those of us who sit in this House, and it is the first time to my knowledge that any part of the British Empire has been subjected to a small body of men and, having had political freedom, have had it taken away from them.
The Dominions Secretary said, in the only reply that he has so far given on this Amendment, that he was not prepared to create any democratic method by which these men might voice their grievance at unfair taxation and that he was not prepared to allow this House to review the expenditure of that taxation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot rise to his feet and make some statement on precisely what constitutional checks the people of Newfoundland have against unfair taxation by the commission that he proposes to send out and that is being set up by this Bill. Failing that, it will be necessary for us to go into the Lobby in support of our Amendment.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: During the last week there has been a great deal of publicity particularly in the South Wales papers of a statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons, made, I think, on the Second Reading of this Bill, to the effect that Newfoundland may provide ample scope for miners and people of that kind.

Mr. THOMAS: I never said a word about South Wales. It must have been someone else.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It was a reference in the South Wales Press.

Mr. THOMAS: Not to me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the Dominions Secretary will look the matter up. I am prepared to accept his statement, but we have heard references in the Debate that Newfoundland may be a place to which the unemployed may be sent. In the interests of the people who may be sent to Newfoundland, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to accept this Amendment. After all, some of these people, living in this country, have a right to express any grievance that they have upon taxation and to approach their Member of Parliament, and that Member of Parliament, when the Finance Bill is presented to the
House, can represent their views to the Government. I think every hon. Member will agree that if there is anything that we jealously guard against—and we know the powers that Mr. Speaker has in this matter in defining a Finance Bill—it is the power of taxation being taken out of the hands of the Members of the House of Commons.
We know that the people of Newfoundland are relatively very poor indeed. It is said that on the 287,000 inhabitants, there is a taxation of about £4 per head, and one can well imagine that 60,000 or 70,000 wage earners would correctly represent the economic capacity of labour in Newfoundland. If that is so, obviously the taxation for an economic unit of the Island would be from £12 to £16 per head.

Mr. WALLHEAD: For this debt alone.

Mr. WILLIAMS: For this debt alone. If they have to be saddled perhaps with additional taxation, without having a right to express their dissent at any time, I think all hon. Members will agree that that is certainly very unjust. After all, the six commissioners who are to be appointed by the Dominions Secretary will have omnipotent power. We hear people talk about the House of Lords, but they will have substantially more power than the House of Lords. They will have more power even than the Commissioners in Durham, or in any other place for that matter, for while we have no right in this House, apparently, to question what may be done by one of the Commissioners in Durham, such a. Commissioner has no right to impose taxation upon the people. But the six Commissioners that are to be appointed by the Secretary of State will have the right to impose upon those people additional taxation. Some of us, including myself, have personal experience, of living under the truck system. Most of these people are living under the truck system. It is very difficult to find a concourse of people suffering from a greater degree of relative poverty than the people in Newfoundland. Yet they will have no right whatever of questioning the action of the commissioners. We shall, apparently, have no right in this House of getting to know what is being done. The Estimates will not be submitted to the House in order that we may question them. Three years hence, after we have been
giving money for three years, the Treasury is to decide whether the loan of £17,500,000 is to be a loan, or to continue to be a gift. That will obviously depend upon what the commissioners advise.
After hearing all the arguments for the Amendment, and especially the able speech delivered by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and by our deputy-Leader of the Opposition, I cannot see how any hon. Member can help agreeing that this is one of the most reasonable Amendments that has been submitted to the Committee to-day. I am hoping that at this late stage, although we have spent some time in discussing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are pressing to help the people upon whom taxation is imposed to gain the right to express the hardships that will befall them. No Member of the House would stand such a condition in his own constituency. The number of inhabitants in Newfoundland is not many more than the average population of some of our larger constituencies. There would certainly be a revolt in this country if any hon. Member could stand up in the House and say that his constituents had additional taxation imposed upon them, and that he had no right to express their hardships and their views.
In this Debate, as in all discussions in which there is so much humanity involved, we should not sever Newfoundland from the people who have to reside in that very difficult country. We should consider the human element all the time. I am certain that if the human element is the dominant element in our minds, we shall realise the reasonableness of this Amendment. I trust that the Secretary of State will again rise and that he may be pressed by some of the hon. Members who support the Government to realise that this is a very grave attack upon political democracy, and that Parliament is of no avail at all if taxation can be imposed upon people without their having the right to express their convictions concerning it. I trust that we shall hear from the Secretary of State or his Under-Secretary a reply upon this matter. The case for the Amendment is unanswerable, and we shall expect him to meet it in his reply.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are entitled to a reply upon this Amendment to the very powerful speech addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). For the future these seven Commissioners are to be in charge of Newfoundland, but we understand that the Governor will be answerable to the right hon. Gentleman and under his authority. The right hon. Gentleman will not permit the Governor, I am quite sure, however great his confidence in the Governor may be, carte blanche to do as he pleases without reference to the right hon. Gentleman. He is not going to allow his name to be used without having the general direction of what is being done in his name. That is a reasonable position to take up. If the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to allow the seven men to do as they please without reference to him, why is this House expected to allow them to do as they please? Why must we take it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman that all is well in Newfoundland without our having, not a daily or a monthly statement, but all that this Amendment asks, namely, an annual statement of how the finances of this area are to be obtained? The principle is not at all a new one. Wars have been waged in this world, and we have lost a substantial proportion of what was a part of the British Empire, on account of the principle involved in this Amendment. It is vital that we should know precisely the answer of the Government to this Amendment.
If we knew exactly how long this condition of affairs would last, there might be something to be said for it, but the right hon. Gentleman himself to-night resisted an Amendment setting a time limit to it. He said that he could not have the three years put in, because for various reasons he did not want a time limit put in. As the Bill now stands it might last for three, five. 10 or 15 years. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this House is never to know exactly how the taxation is to be obtained? We are concerned with the principle. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been associated all his life with the principle of democracy in practice, ought to be the last to refuse this simple proposition. We are entitled to a more adequate reply
than has yet been given. Unless we have stronger evidence against this Amendment than we have yet heard, we shall feel bound to go into the Division Lobby in its support.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 201.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
 [9.35 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Salter, Dr. Allred


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorne, William James


Bevan. Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Buchanan, George
John, William
Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Or. John H. (Llanelly)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Loqan, David Gilbert



Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. McGovern.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James.



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Aske, Sir Robert William
Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goldie, Noel B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead. Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro. Patrick


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Harbord, Arthur
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hartland, George A.
Nunn, William


Blindell, James
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James.


Borodale, Viscount
Henderson. Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Perkins. Walter R. D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Petherick, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard. Tom Forrest
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Potter. John


Burgin. Or. Edward Leslie
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Percy John


Burnett. John George
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Bring)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hutchison. W. D. (Essex. Romf'd)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Cayzer. Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Rea, Walter Russell


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jennings, Roland
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Remer. John R.


Christie, James Archibald
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Renwick, Major Gustay A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Ker. J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Aruthur, U.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Knight, Holford
Rickards, George William


Cook, Thomas A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel, L.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crookshank.Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leckle. J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runqe, Norah Cecil


Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoufh)


Denville. Alfred
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Dickie, John P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Ve'e
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lieut. Col. C. G. (Partick)
Scone, Lord


Edmondson, Major A, J,
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)


Elmley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.
Skelton. Archibald Noel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKeag, William
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & KInc'dine. C.)


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
McKie, John Hamilton
Spears, Briqadler-General Edward L.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Magnay, Thomas
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Spens, William Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strauss, Edward A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Walter James


Summersby, Charles H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sutcliffe, Harold
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Tata, Mavis Constance
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thompson, Luke
White, Henry Graham
Commander Southby and Captain


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Austin Hudson.


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

9.44 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
Any Letters Patent issued under this sub-section shall be laid before the House of Commons for a period of twenty-one days during the Session of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty against any of the provisions contained in the Letters Patent they shall be withdrawn and amended Letters Patent issued in accordance with the desires of the House of Commons.
The point raised here is rather important. Under the Clause now, it will be the duty of the Commission to make the constitution of Newfoundland by Letters Patent issued by His Majesty. We are not now contesting the point that the commissioners are to make the Constitution. We are not discussing the commissioners, their numbers or their fitness or capacity. We are down to the narrow point of the advisability of laying that constitution as a Parliamentary Paper on the Table of the House of Commons. We have made other demands and every one of them has been defeated, but we accept our defeat, and I do not wish to do what the Secretary of State for the Dominions constantly does, and that is to extend the argument, because that prolongs discussion. I say frankly that if it had not been for the Secretary of State we should have got on more quickly. If one of the Under-Secretaries had been here not a tenth of the time would have been wasted, because they have too much ability. They have cheek, bub they have ability.
I do not want to delay the proceedings, but to narrow the issue down to one simple point. It is simple. [Laughter.] I enjoy a joke as much as anyone, though I get very few. There is a lady Member who has got a mouth. I wish she had some sense as well as a mouth. Well, I am sorry for that; I ought not to have said it. Whatever we may have said about our former Amendments we are very serious on this Amendment, and I
think there is a point of substance concerned. The Constitution is to be framed by these commissioners, and we are asking that it shall be laid on the Table of this House so that the House may, if it so desires, challenge that Constitution. I should say that was an eminently fair proposal and one to appeal to hon. Members. We do not because we have been defeated deny the right of the commissioners to make the Constitution, or their capacity and their character, but we say the Constitution ought to lie on the Table of this House for 21 days before it operates. The six may do their work well, and if they do they will be supported by a vote of this House, which would strengthen them in their task. If they do their work badly, the House will have an opportunity to remit the Constitution back. It is a simple elementary demand we are making, quite in keeping with Parliamentary traditions and the doctrines of all parties.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I notice with some alarm that the Government have had to call up reserves, and that the Front Bench is occupied by a very representative party of the various sections composing the Government. I am sure they are very competent, but I should feel happier if the Secretary of State for the Dominions were still here—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has got to eat sometimes."]—and we had the advantage of his ripe wisdom and constitutional outlook in dealing with constitutional Amendments. I have felt that many of the Amendments moved so far have hardly been fitting or likely to improve the Measure, but this Amendment is eminently wise, and in keeping with the various Measures we have been putting through the House for the last few years by giving an opportunity to the House of Commons to have the last word. In an almost revolutionary experiment of this kind—because none of us know exactly how this is going to work out—we should all feel very much
easier in our minds if we knew that before the actual decisions of the commission were put into operation we could review them and have explanations made to us as to the why and the wherefor of the various plans.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member and the Committee that I understood this Amendment to mean that when Letters Patent issue setting up the commission they should lie for 21 days on the Table of the House, and that if an Address was not moved by this House against the Letters Patent, then they would be in force. The hon. Member appears to me to argue as if the Letters Patent would be continually open to discussion.

Mr. MANDER: It would give the House of Commons an opportunity of further consideration of this matter in a more detailed form before the proposals were actually put into operation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member does not seriously mean that the Measures we have been putting through in the last few years have given this House the last word?

Mr. MANDER: There is a good deal in the criticism of the National Government's work which my hon. Friend has just made. In many ways they have given us the formality of consultation without its reality, but I am hoping that in this matter, because of its novelty and of the great interest taken in it, Parliament will insist on making fuller use of the opportunities to review these Letters Patent than it does in the case of the Import Duties Advisory Committee resolutions, to which my hon. Friend was referring. I hope the representative of the National Liberal section of the Government is going to do his best to show how he can stand beside the efforts of the National Labour representative of the Government, and will accept the Amendment.

9.55 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This Amendment raises a very important constitutional point which hon. Members who have not been here all this evening will not appreciate. It is also important because it gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us what precisely is the meaning of basing the new Letters Patent on the recommendations of the Royal Commission referred to in the Address. Those recom-
mendations are very voluminous and detailed. We are anxious to know, before we consider whether Letters Patent ought to be laid before Parliament, precisely which of the recommendations are going to be incorporated in the Letters Patent. It is obviously an extremely important matter, as regards the supervision of this House and of this Parliament, which is being made responsible for the Government of Newfoundland, that we should know what it is intended to lay down as the basis of government in that country.
The Address merely asks that the new Letters Patent, which will be the constitution as it were of Newfoundland, should be on the basis of the commission's recommendations. That is an extremely vague phrase. They could well be on the basis of the recommendations if two of them were adopted and six were neglected, or vice versa. We want to know which of the recommendations set out on page 224 of the report are to be incorporated in the Letters Patent and in what form. I will take heading (c) from the recommendations on page 224, obviously an important matter, which reads:
The Commission of Government would be composed of six members, exclusive of the Governor, three of whom would be drawn from Newfoundland.
We want to know how they are to be drawn from Newfoundland. There is no provision here as to their appointment, who shall appoint them, how they shall be selected or what class of person they shall be. There is a suggestion that these three persons shall be paid out of Newfoundland moneys, while the three English commissioners will be paid out of moneys presumably voted by Parliament. There is no provision that I can see in this Bill for paying for the English commissioners, although the recommendation of the commission is that the three English commissioners should be paid out of moneys provided by this House. Therefore, presumably, at some time we shall require another Bill to provide for the payment of the three English commissioners, who will not be able to be carried upon any of the Votes which at the present time come before us.
That is a matter of very great importance, because the method of selection of the three persons drawn from Newfound-
land will make a very great difference to the population of Newfoundland. Will they be representative of all classes in Newfoundland? Will they be three merchants, three financiers, or three civil servants? Will there be a representative of the fishermen among them? The fishermen are by far the largest body of persons in Newfoundland. If there is to be any representative capacity at all, as regards those three Newfoundlanders, presumably some of them will be drawn from the lower classes of society as well as from the upper classes of society.
Then there is a provision in regard to the absence of the Governor. I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs thinks it satisfactory that the Chief Justice of Newfoundland should hold the casting vote in this commission, on occasions when the Governor is absent? There will be three local persons and three English commissioners, and, when the Governor is absent from the Island, the Chief Justice, according to the Recommendation, will take his place.

Earl WINTERTON: He always does.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Noble Lord is quite right, but this arrangement as regards the Governor is not the same as in any other Colony or Dominion, because he is not acting as an active person in this arrangement. He is to be one of seven.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not put my legal knowledge against that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I happen to have studied the constitutions of the Colonies. There are a great many Colonies where the Governor has personally to administer affairs, and in his absence the Chief Justice or the Chief Secretary invariably acts.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I quite agree with the Noble Lord. I do not pretend to have the intimate knowledge of colonial government that he has. He has had an opportunity in the Privy Council of studying a good many examples. I suggest to him, however, that there are no cases of a body of seven persons acting dictatorially in this way, without any local advisory council—which is a very new feature in colonial government—where the Governor has the balancing
vote between three local people and three people sent out from England. I shall be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary, or from the right hon. Gentleman, whether that is going to be put in as part of the Letters Patent.
Then, on page 224 of the Report, there is paragraph (f). I should again like to know whether this is to be incorporated in the Letters Patent? It states:
Your Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would, for their part, assume general responsibility for the finances of the Island until such time as it may become self-supporting again.
What does "general responsibility" mean? Does it mean that we are to be responsible for everything and, as it were, to give a complete indemnity to the island in all events, or does it apply merely to a general supervision of the finances of the island? Those are two extremely different things. Paragraph (g) raises a very important point indeed, which has already been touched upon in this Debate. It says:
It would be understood"—
and this is part of the recommendations upon which the Letters Patent will be based—
that, as soon as the island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government, on. request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
What provision is to be made in the Letters Patent for that request to become vocal? Quite clearly, if the Letters Patent are to be based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they must include some provision by which the request of the people of Newfoundland can be made vocal and can come, either to this House or to the Crown, at such time as they think that they are self-supporting and are anxious and willing again to take up responsible government. Perhaps whoever replies for the Government will tell us what view they take as regards that matter. The complexity of the matters that are raised here, in the setting up of a new constitution, for a country—it may not be a very big country, or have a very large population, but to the inhabitants the matter is of vital and fundamental importance—is, according to this Bill, to be by Letters Patent, which is much the same as by Order in Council, in respect of it being done by the Minister, on the advice of
the people in his Department, without their being submitted in any way to this House.
If we pass this Clause of the Bill, and if we do not vote in favour of this Amendment, we are now parting for ever from control of any questions of the constitution of Newfoundland. The matter cannot be raised in this House unless some new constitution is brought in, superseding the the which is now about to be made, when curiously enough it can be raised. If such a constitution is made, it is to be raised. That would be quite a sensible provision if we were going to discuss this Constitution now—if we had the opportunity of having the Letters Patent before us now, when we are discussing the Bill in Committee, and could say that we object to this, that or the other in the Letters Patent. But we are discussing this matter absolutely in the dark. We have had no indication from the Government as to what they intend to include in the Letters Patent. We are asked to give this blank cheque to the Government, although the Government themselves admit that, if on a subsequent occasion the Letters Patent are altered, it is right and proper that the House should consider them.
I should like the Under-Secretary to explain how it is that in the first event they should not be put before the House of Commons, although it is admitted that subsequently, if they are changed, the change must be put before the House of Commons. Surely it is logical to do it in one way or the other—either to say that the House has no concern with the Constitution of Newfoundland, or to say that on all occasions when the Constitution is decided upon the House must have the opportunity of commenting upon it. I very seriously press the Government in this case to say that, when we are dealing with so important a matter as a new Constitution for a part of the Empire for which we, the Parliament of this country, are taking the responsibility, we should at least have the opportunity of making suggestions, possibly constructive suggestions, as regards the form of that Constitution.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am sorry I am not able to accept this Amendment, despite the arguments which have been put forward, but in fact the Letters
Patent will not cover matter which has not already been decided and agreed upon by the House. We have had now three Debates on these various questions. We had one lasting for some hours on the Money Resolution; we had another fairly long Debate on the Second Beading the other day, and to-day hon. Members are taking many opportunities of trying to get Amendments to the Constitutional proposals which have been recommended by the Royal Commission. Therefore, by the end of these Debates on the Bill, I do not think anyone will be able to say that the House of Commons has not fully approved the new Constitution which it is intended to set up in Newfoundland.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We do not know what it is.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, "We do not know what it is," but what have we been discussing in the House on two or three occasions during the last fortnight?

Sir S. CRIPPS: If I might answer that question, we have been discussing, very largely, the report of the commission, but which part of the report of the commission is going to be incorporated in the Letters Patent, I am perfectly certain, not a single Member of the House, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary knows.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am leading up to that point, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will be a little patient—

Sir S. CRIPPS: You asked me a question.

Mr. MacDONALD: I asked the question rhetorically in answer to an interruption by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as he well knows. We have had extremely interesting discussions on the detailed recommendations which will be covered by the Letters Patent. We had some interesting discussions as to the type of individuals that these six commissioners were to be, and there was any amount of opportunity for the House to decide that instead of there being six commissioners there should be, say, eight, or instead of there being a purely commission form of government there should be some kind of popular assembly or advisory assembly established in order to alter the recommendations made by the
Royal Commission. All that I would say is that the Letters Patent will not include anything in the way of administrative machinery which is not in the report, and which hon. Members have not had an opportunity of discussing in the House.
The Letters Patent will merely make the provisions which are constitutionally necessary in order to set in being the detailed recommendations, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, on page 224 of the report. The Letters Patent will establish government by commission; they will establish that there shall be six commissioners assisting the Governor in that commission; they will establish that three of those commissioners shall be chosen from the United Kingdom and three from Newfoundland. They will not go beyond what is constitutionally necessary in order to establish these proposals, which have already been put before hon. Members in the pages of the report.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask my hon. Friend one question on a point which I do not quite follow? Is it proposed to put into the Letters Patent the actual words of the recommendations on page 6 of the Bill; and, if so, would he explain how it is proposed to put in paragraph (g) on page 7? [Interruption.] It is not as easy as some hon. Members seem to think.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is not easy, I agree. I was going to deal with that point before I finished, but there were one or two other questions asked, even before that question was raised, by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. He asked, for instance, how are the three Newfoundland representatives to be chosen? As I understand it, the particular machinery will not be laid down in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent will say that there shall be three commissioners chosen from Newfoundland. The actual way in which those commissioners will be chosen is of course not worked out in detail in the Report, but I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said the other day in answer to a question in the House, namely, that there must obviously be consultation with the authorities in Newfoundland as to who those three representatives most properly can be. Those representatives will be appointed by my
right hon. Friend, and the Letters Patent will make provision for that.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether we were satisfied that, on those occasions when the Governor is absent from the Island, the Chief Justice should take his place in this Commission of government, and should have the opportunity, on rare occasions perhaps, but still should have the opportunity, of giving what was virtually a casting vote—though it is not really a casting vote—in cases where there was an equal division between the six commissioners on any subject. My Noble Friend pointed out that there are Chief Justices holding responsibilities and wielding powers in some Colonies at least as great as that on occasion. One cannot exactly give a parallel case to this, because this is an unparalleled situation, but we have Chief Justices in other parts of the Empire wielding on occasion just as much authority and in just as important cases as are likely to arise in Newfoundland. Therefore, my answer to that question is that the Government are quite satisfied with that provision. Then he asked whether the words "general responsibility" meant a general supervision or something else. They mean general supervision of the finances of the Island.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to stand by that? It seems to me that they mean a definite responsibility for the finances of the Island.

Mr. MacDONALD: We shall exert that responsibility through the six commissioners and the Governor, who will form the Government by commission, and the detailed supervision will be carried out by them, and my right hon. Friend, as the representative of the Government responsible here, will have the general supervision of the business. That is all that I mean when I say that the phrase means a general supervision by the Government in this country. As regards the question asked about the celebrated paragraph (g) on page 7 of the Bill, the Letters Patent, as I understand it, will not go into greater detail than this and the actual details of the provisions which will have to be made in order to implement this will be worked out later. I am advised that all that the Letters Patent will embody is what is constitutionally necessary in order to establish a machinery of government which, by the
time these debates are over, will, I believe, have the approval of the House.
My hon. Friend asked one final question: why should future Letters Patent amending or revoking the Letters Patent which we are now going to issue come before the House if we do not think it necessary for this first instrument to be laid on the Table. That is the whole point, that these first Letters Patent will not embody anything which has not already got the approval of Parliament, and we are making the special provision that future Letters Patent should lie on the Table if they embody some revision of the Constitution which has not had the previous consent of the House, and, therefore, it is necessary in that second case that they should be laid so that the House can have the opportunity of passing its judgment on them. In this case it is not necessary, because the House will already have approved the principle and the machinery that is to be established by this first instrument.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's reply can be regarded as very satisfactory. He has not given any reason that I can see for not laying these Letters Patent before us. He says we have discussed what sort of people the commissioners should be. We have discussed them, but we have not come to a decision. He says that we have decided that there should be some kind of representative Chamber. We have not decided any such thing.

Mr. MacDONALD: We have not decided it, and therefore I did not say it. I said it had been discussed in the House whether we should have something like that. My only explanation of the hon. Member's misunderstanding is that he was not present when the matter was being discussed.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I was, but we will let that pass. We may have discussed it, but we have not decided it, and that is one of the reasons why I think we should have the Letters Patent laid. Then he said nothing would be put into them which was not in the report. But there is a great deal in the report. We do not know how much of the report is going to be embodied. It may be that nothing is going to be put in them which is not in the report, but we do not know how
much of the report is going to be put into them. We are still completely in the dark, and we still ask with every justification how these commissioners are to be chosen, by whom they are to be chosen, and who they are to be. None of these things has been decided and it is because they have not been decided but only discussed at large, in the most airy and hypothetical way, without any decision being reached, that some of us think that this Amendment is reasonable and that we might well ask, if we are going to assume responsibility and general supervision of the whole business—they are his own words—to see the Letters Patent before we come to a final decision. However anxious some of my friends may be to abrogate the whole of the powers of the House as quickly as possible in every Measure that comes before us, the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that some of us are very anxious not only about this method but about the rapidity with which the House is being asked to divest itself of all the powers that it ever had. I would press the hon. Gentleman on the matter, because he does not seem to have put forward any valid reason why the Letters Patent should not be laid.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Member did not assist the House at all when he suggested that it had already given its consent, or will to-night give its consent, to all the Government ask from it. If it is the intention of the Government to embody in the Letters Patent only what appears in the recommendations here and in the Bill, what harm would there be in putting those Letters Patent in their complete form before the House of Commons? If, on the other hand, the Government do not propose to make those Letters Patent fully representative of what appears in the recommendations, the House of Commons has a right to discuss whatever changes may be made by the Minister.
It is a very important departure which the Government are asking the House of Commons to accept. We read, on page 197 of the report, of the nature of the constitutional changes which are to take place upon the recommendations of this commission and we proceed and find that specific duties are to be allotted to
a body of people, three of whom are to be drawn from Newfoundland and three drawn from this country. They are to be in charge of several Departments of Government, an indeterminate form of government which we are asked to endorse. We do not know how that responsibility is to be carried out, and who really is to be the final authority in Newfoundland, but we know that certain commissioners are to be put in charge of its services. We find that the three drawn from Newfoundland are to be allotted certain services, but the commissioners drawn from this country are to have superior and overriding services which will determine very largely the quality and character of the services to be governed by the Newfoundland Commissioners. We read that:
The remaining Departments, grouped as follows, might be placed in charge of the three members of the commission chosen from the United Kingdom.
On page 199 you will find that Finance, Customs, Income Tax, Post Office, are appropriate departments to be placed under the charge of the commissioners from the United Kingdom. The key positions if you like are to be under the supervision of these commissioners, but the commissioners drawn from Newfoundland are to be in charge of Home Affairs, Justice, Education, Public Health and Welfare and so on. Are these recommendations to be fully implemented in the Letters Patent? Is there to be any modification of these recommendations? Are there to be any new and specific instructions given to these people as to how they are to carry out their duty? What form do the Letters Patent take? Are they simply a re-publication of these recommendations with the signature and authority of the right hon. Gentleman behind them, or are they simply instructions to the new Government based in a general way upon these recommendations but containing much that is new to the House and different from the subject of the discussion in the House of Commons to-night? I am not satisfied. I shall be called upon to vote without knowing, or having the faintest sketch in my mind of what is proposed to be done by these commissioners.
We have asked for many safeguards to be introduced. We have asked that the people in Newfoundland should be con-
suited and should be kept in contact with the new Government which is to be imposed upon them with very important control of their life and death—of the nature of their social services and their future development. All that is to be given to these people, and we are not told how they are to give effect to what this Parliament most desire, namely, that, having superseded the Government of that country, a Government more efficient, more sympathetic and more progressive in every way should be put in its place. We have no assurance on that point. I very much suspect the powers that may be given to some of the Newfoundlanders who may be appointed. Will they be people who have been involved in the previous reprehensible conduct in any way? Will they be people who are or have been in partnership with the defaulters, who are still in Newfoundland and who, presumably, will play an important part still in the social life of Newfoundland? Is that class of person to be drawn upon? Is the proposed Government to be very much different from the old Government in personnel? I admit that there is to be a limitation of the power of Government given to the Newfoundland representatives; the key positions in Government are to be given to the representatives from this country, but, even so, I doubt very much whether the Government that is to be set up will not be subject to the same insidious influences which have been exerted in Newfoundland life for many years.
We ought to know a great deal more about the character of the instructions to be given to the new Government. We have respect for the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is asking too much that we should, without knowing more, give to a set of people whom, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman does not know and whom the House does not know, authority to carry on virtual dictatorship in the Island, without our having any indication from this House of the extent to which we are willing to trust them, and without giving any direction as to the wishes of this House in regard to Newfoundland. There are many things that one distrusts in connection with this matter. This action on the part of His Majesty's Government has been taken because of the awfully wicked ramp in Newfoundland. The conditions which existed shortly prior and subsequent to
the institution of the Commission of Inquiry are in themselves sufficient to cause the profoundest suspicion in the minds of every clean-thinking politician in this House. We ought to have much more safeguard of the public interests of this country, and we ought to have an assurance that this House is doing right. We cannot have that assurance unless we are given very much more information from the right hon. Gentleman.

10.28 p.m.

Major HILLS: I have sat silent all through the Debate. I think the Bill is a fine Measure and that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing in the right way, but I have been interested in the arguments that have been used in support of the Amendment, and I think my right hon. Friend would be wise in accepting it, or, if he cannot accept the words, he might accept the Amendment in some modified form. In the first place, it would do no harm. It is not the case that the Letters Patent would not be valid until approved by this House; that is not asked for, but it simply means that if the Letters Patent are disliked by this House and a Prayer is carried asking that they should be amended, then they would be withdrawn and amended. The Amendment would not do harm and would not be troublesome to the Government. An even stronger argument is that we are giving vast powers to my right hon. Friend, and I believe he will exercise them wisely, but we ought to know something of the form which the Letters Patent are going to take. In view of the great powers which are being given and in view of the right of this House to see these Letters Patent in concrete form before approving them, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) was not present earlier in the day when I stated quite frankly that there is no one on the Government side who pretends for a moment that this is a Bill which is presented with enthusiasm to the House, No one pretends that it is, least of all myself. I want hon. Members to keep in mind our difficulties. The criticsm made by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)
the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon and the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) on this matter is not a criticism which I resent. On the contrary, it is a fair House of Commons point of view. I say quite frankly that it is the kind of thing you would ordinarily expect this House to be most jealous to safeguard, but I ask hon. Members to appreciate the difficulty. I have no idea who the commissioners are likely to be, nor has anyone else. Our difficulty is this, that we have undertaken this liability.
Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill has no other purpose than to pay the stockholders, to look after their interests. That is their argument. I am not arguing that point now, but I say that taking the history of the Colony, and the hardships and sacrifices which the people of Newfoundland have made during all these years, we honestly believe that if we had not undertaken this liability disaster would have come not to the stockholders alone but to the whole Island and to the workers in the Island. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with it, I am not asking them to agree with it, but that is our object, and, therefore in doing it we have to trust somebody in the matter.
I will give the Committee this guarantee, that so far as Letters Patent are concerned we do not intend them to include anything other than that which enables the machinery of the scheme to be put into operation. I am sympathetic to the view put forward and I will see whether in another place I can find words to meet the position. I assure the House that we are not desiring to slip something through unknown. It is a difficult situation. It is one that we are all anxious to remedy, so that we can give Newfoundland a real start. I assure the Committee that I am having this point looked into in order to see whether it is possible to deal with it in another place.

Mr. ALBERY: Would it not be possible at a later stage in this House for the right hon. Gentleman to make a more ample statement to cover the issues that have been raised?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend cannot have looked at the proceedings of this House during the week or he would not have asked that question. When there is a point made in this House and the
statement is made that it will be reconsidered in another place, my hon. Friend should appreciate that that is the maximum that I can say. Statements have been made about this House having no opportunity of discussing anything. As a matter of fact hon. Members will have an opportunity to question me every week and probably every day, and whenever they like to put my Vote down that can be challenged. But that is another issue.

10.37 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a conciliatory reply. Personally I should never have voted for the Amendment anyhow, because I am generally supporting the Bill, but I sympathise very much with the arguments put forward in all quarters of the House regarding the Amendment. My right hon. Friend has not quite adequately dealt with the point at issue. He has given a promise that he will have this matter dealt with in the House of Lords, but he has not shown in his speech that he has fully realised the great importance of this matter. I put that to the Committee as a very old Member who has seen a good many Constitutions put through this House. I was responsible for getting through a small one myself, the Constitution of Burma. This is the first time that the House of Commons has been asked to pass a Constitution without the ipsissima verba of that Constitution being before it. That may seem a small matter to those who do not think much about Parliament, who think that Parliament has become a back number and only a nuisance in the way

of Governments having complete executive control. I hope there are none holding those views on either Front Bench. This is not a small thing, but one which involves an important principle. The real reason why the Dominions Secretary has not been able to deal with the matter is the question of time. Time is the essence of the contract.

I wish entirely to dissociate myself from the opposition to the Bill. I have supported the Bill at every stage by vote and speech. But here we are being asked for the first time to vote a Constitution without having seen it. The Letters Patent will constitute the actual instrument of the Constitution. That is a serious departure from our customary practice. It is only another instance of the way in which Parliament, for one reason or another, has to do its business in these days. It may be all right. It may be that my hon. Friends of the Tory party think that it is a precedent about which they need not worry. But they may live to see a state of affairs when they will be sorry to have created a precedent of this kind, just as they may be sorry that it has been necessary to do so much by Orders-in-Couneil. But before we part with the proposal let us not fail to realise how important it is. I know that the Dominions Secretary will be as good as his word and try to get the matter dealt with in the House of Lords. I can only hope that he will be successful.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 201.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
 [10.40 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKeag, William


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth. Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Aske, Sir Robert William
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Baldwin Webb, Colonel J.
Goldie, Noel B.
Potherick, M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Grimston, R. V.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potter, John


Beit, Sir Alfred L,
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pybus, Percy John


Bernays, Robert
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay. Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Borodale, Viscount
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bossom, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ray, Sir William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Brig.-G en. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burghley, Lord
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burnett, John George
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jennings, Roland
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J, Campbell
Savery, Samuel Servington


Carver, Major William H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Castlereagh, Viscount
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leckle, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Christie, James Archibald
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dolman. N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. da Vere
Spent, William Patrick


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Summersby, Charles H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dickie, John P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson. Luke


Drewe, Cedric
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dunglass, Lord
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Weymouth, Viscount


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nunn, William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Fremantle, Sir Francis
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Penny, Sir George



Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Mr. Blinded and Commander Southby.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.48 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: There are several points that I would like to raise upon this Clause before the Committee leaves it. I do not think some Members of the Committee have realised the seriousness of what it is that we are doing by Clause 1. It is the first time that there has been an inroad upon the democratic
government of any of the Dominions. All the Dominions have gradually increased from a Colonial status up to a Dominion status, where they have got full self-government in the comity of nations which is called the British Commonwealth of Nations, and this is the first time that we have ever taken a retrogressive step in that gradual advance to free government within that Commonwealth. I think the Committee ought to consider whether the circumstances
arising in Newfoundland are really such as to make it necessary to take that backward step. It does not necessarily follow that the solution of the troubles of Newfoundland is bound up with the abolition of democracy. Those of us who are anxious to preserve democracy both here and in other countries view with considerable apprehension this tendency to accuse democracy of a crime for which it is not responsible. There are other ways of dealing with democracy besides getting rid of it. Capital punishment is not the only punishment for democracy. You can take steps to mend its ways and to make it more effective and more truly capable of carrying out the will of the people of the country.
There is one very grave defect in the democratic system that has been enforced in Newfoundland to which hon. Members of the Committee have perhaps not attached sufficient importance. There has always been a property qualification for the members of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. That qualification is set out on page 11, paragraph 50 of the Report:
The qualification of candidates for election to the House of Assembly is possession of property exceeding 2,400 dollars in value or a net annual income of 480 dollars.
Those figures may not sound very large figures when one is considering a country like America or a country like this, but when one is dealing with a community which largely consists of persons possessing no property at all and—as we have heard in these Debates and read in the commission's report—in which many of the people never have money through their hands at all in the course of the whole year owing to the truck system that persists there, it is obvious that a property qualification of that sort seriously limits the class of persons from whom the elected members of the Assembly may be drawn. The industrial and merchant community of Newfoundland is a very small one, and one gathers that among this small class of propertied persons in Newfoundland there has grown up this system of political impurity which is so fully described in the course of the commission's report. It certainly appears that the blame attaches rather to a particular class of propertied persons, the class of persons who have been
entitled to become elected members of the Assembly in Newfoundland.
That is obviously a very great weakness. It is a thing that we got rid of in this country many years ago, and we suggest that one of the things which might well have been regarded before democracy was killed was the question of whether it was not possible to revive democracy by making it more real and more effective, instead of proceeding to substitute a dictatorship. That is the modern way of curing democracy in every country in the world, and the one which the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adopting so freely in this case, although I understand that in some of his writings he professes himself against it. The view that the only cure for democracy is death and substitution by dictatorship is certainly not a view that I hold or that this party holds. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman has ever read anything I have written, he will see that I do not hold that view, but if he has only read the "Morning Post" he may think differently. In any event, the personal aspect is wholly unimportant. But to the people of Newfoundland this question of whether or not we can cure democracy instead of killing it is one of vital importance as there has been and is to be no provision for any testing of the opinion of the people of Newfoundland by plebiscite or in any other way. We are forcing upon them, as a condition of the financial assistance we are giving, a dictatorship, because, apparently, the argument runs that the particular type of democracy that they have had in Newfoundland has been unable to resist the temptation of the capitalists who have been offering money corruptly.
Therefore, because that particular type has failed, we give up all hope of instituting any better type or any alternative type of democracy and say that our only resort lies in dictatorship. We believe that this is an extremely unfortunate and vicious thing to do. especially in the present stage of world development, for we are merely adding to the world tendency to kill democracy. This would really have been a magnificent chance, especially for the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary, both of whom believe firmly in the Socialist co-operative commonwealth, to have tried it in practice in Newfoundland. I know that they believe that, given the right circumstances, such
a system is bound to produce the most beneficial results for all the workers. Of course, it implies getting rid of loads of debt which are the result of exploitation by capitalists, and they would sympathise, I know, with jettisoning all that unnecessary load of debt. We jettison it quite cheerfully by making nominal payments when it is a question of the debt to America. Why not let the Newfoundland people make a token payment to the bondholders? Why should the Canadian banks receive 6,000,000 dollars in cash from the taxpayers of this country? I presume the Canadian banks took the usual banking risks in lending the money to the Prime Minister, or whoever it was, in Newfoundland, and I am bound to say it is difficult to follow the logic that now makes it necessary for this country to pay in cash in full the overdraft of the corrupt Newfoundland Government.
It would surely be much better to adopt the straight honourable international financial system of giving them 80,000 dollars as a token payment. It would have salved the consciences of the people who made it, and, I suppose, according to the ordinary standard of morality in international debt nowadays, it would have satisfied the Canadian banks. Having done that, having got rid of this load of debt which has been built up by the corruption of the Government in Newfoundland, and what the commission call the very ready lenders they found to hand to assist them in the job of exploiting Newfoundland to their advantage, he might have started to set up that which has always been the right hon. Gentleman's aim in life—the Socialist commonwealth. He would have seen no doubt rapidly growing under his aegis in Newfoundland that which he has long been dreaming as possible for his own country.
I can imagine nothing that would have pleased the right hon. Gentleman more than this opportunity for the practical realisation of the dream of a lifetime. It seems to us that it must have been very trying for him when he found that his Conservative colleagues in the Cabinet refused to allow this great opportunity to launch this island on a successful Socialist career. We do really feel sympathy with him in the struggle he must have had in the Cabinet with his one or two faithful Socialist colleagues to try and get this scheme launched against the opposition of the reactionaries.
However, unfortunately, he has failed in that gallant fight. Now we find that the broker's men are put in, and they are presumably to squat there until the debt is paid according to the ordinary capitalist system. That is the provision, that until Newfoundland can pay the bondholders and the banks and others this commission is to stay in occupation. We resent very much the idea that the fishermen and the other gallant workers in Newfoundland, instead of being freed from this incubus which has been put on them by the vice and greed of the richer people of Newfoundland and the banks outside, should be tied down to this load of debt, and that apparently no steps are to be taken to give them a new and better basis than the basis of corrupt capitalism which has made their lives a misery.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I want to pursue a point which I raised on the Second Reading, to which, it seems to me, the Under-Secretary did not give an adequate reply. What action do the Government propose to take during the next few years, when the Colony is administered under the Letters Patent, with respect to the possible association of the Colony with Canada? We ought to have a definite statement from the Government as to what negotiations have taken place in the past. The Secretary of State did make some reference this afternoon to past negotiations, but it is much more important to know what is to happen in the future. I will recapitulate the points I made on Second Reading. I pointed out the very close industrial, educational, religious and economic ties which bind our oldest Colony to Canada. At the time of the Federation, in 1867, it was fully anticipated that she would join Canada, and in 1895, when there was another financial crisis in the Colony, negotiations took place between the two States and agreement was very nearly reached. There was a matter of £1,000,000 outstanding, which this country was asked to pay, and which it refused to do. As late as 1928 a debate took place in the Canadian Senate, when the general view was expressed that it was desirable that Newfoundland should become associated with Canada, and negotiations were definitely started for that purpose. It was only
the coming of the great depression which nipped off those negotiations. The commission dealt with this point in their report, but I would venture to quote certain passages in order to point out that they seem to be totally inadequate to explain the non-exploration of the subject from that point of view. Paragraph 533 says:
Unless the Canadian Government were prepared to offer strikingly generous terms no such solution would be acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion.
Surely, now that the people of Newfoundland have the offer of a free grant of a large sum of money from Great Britain, they are not exactly in the mood to come to terms with somebody who would deal with them more on the basis of their actual position as a bankrupt State. In paragraph 540 it is suggested that
Apart, however, from the hostility which proposals for political union might be expected to evoke among certain interests.
Surely the fact that certain interests, financial or otherwise, possibly not very reputable, might object to negotiations to join with Canada is not a very good reason why they should not take place.?Probably the very people who are responsible for so much of the trouble in the past would be those who would object to this union taking place. I submit that there again there is no hope for it, but perhaps we come closer to the objections here. Paragraph 542 says:
Chief among the possible disadvantages is placed the necessity for direct taxation, hitherto unknown to the fisherman in Newfoundland.
I cannot see, because the Newfoundlander might be called upon to pay direct taxation for the first time, that that is a valid argument for not joining the Dominion of Canada. I hope that the matter is going to be thoroughly explored, and I appealed to the Under-Secretary to deal with the matter in his reply. It is only because his reply was very inadequate that I am raising the matter again. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with the matter which is of very great importance, and of far greater importance than he is prepared to admit, and cannot be passed over in the light and airy way in which he has attempted to do. The hon. Gentleman said that the Commission examined the suggestion that Newfoundland should join in the Dominion of Canada,
but after sympathetic consideration they had found that it was, in the economic and political circumstances of the time, absolutely impossible as. a method of meeting the situation. I appreciate that. I have been trying to point out what some of those obstacles were. But there was a counter-offer of a very attractive kind, and while they had that before them, they were not going to listen to any other method which might be discussed with the Dominions on a more realist basis. I notice in the famous paragraph (g) that there is a statement that:
It would be understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible Government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
If it got abroad that, when we had spent all this money and administered the island, all that was going to happen was that automatically on demand from those very people in Newfoundland who are responsible for all this mischief, they were to have the whole thing handed back to them so that they could get up to the same tricks again, it would be a first class disaster. There is no reason why they should hare it. I say most sincerely that so far from that position being accepted, it ought to be made clear now that, during the. intervening period, the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can by private negotiation and by diplomatic pressure,: on the most friendly possible way, to bring together the Dominions and Newfoundland, pointing out to them their unity of interest, and, obviously, in the long run their interest is one. We are in a position not only to give good advice, but to exercise a little pressure in view of the great sacrifices that we are making for the country. Whether this view which I am expressing is the right one or not, I seriously suggest that it requires further exploration, and a definite statement from the Secretary of State, who will not get round the difficulty by treating it lightly, as if it were of no importance as to what the policy of His Majesty's Government is in the matter. In all friendliness and with every desire to assist the true future of the Colony of Newfoundland, which I believe lies with the Dominion of Canada, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on the point.

Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 47.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nunn, William


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Palmer, Francis Noel


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Percy, Lord Eustace


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Petherick, M


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n. Bilston)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Potter, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goldie, Noel B.
Pybus, Percy John


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ray, Sir William


Bernays, Robert
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Guy. J. C. Morrison
Remer, John R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Blindell, James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rickards, George William


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Harbord, Arthur
Robinson, John Roland


Borodale, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)
Scone, Lord


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burghley, Lord
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hurd, Sir Percy
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Burnett, John George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Butt. Sir Alfred
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jamieson, Douglas
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jennings, Roland
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Spens, William Patrick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leckie, J. A.
Strauss, Edward A.


Christie, James Archibald
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clarry, Reginald George
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Summersby, Charles H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McCorguodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MeKie, John Hamilton
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tree, Ronald


Dickie, John P.
Magnay, Thomas
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Drewe, Cedrie
Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Weymouth, Viscount


Duggan, Hubert John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Eastwood, John Francis
Mitchell, Harold p. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Womersley, Walter James


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.



Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Munro, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, George
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Banfield, John William
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Edwards, Charles


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Pickering, Ernest H.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McGovern, John
White, Henry Graham


Grundy, Thomas W.
McKeag, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Wilmot, John


Harris, Sir Percy
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Janner, Barnett
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Nathan, Major H. L.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 32.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
 [11.18 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Aske, sir Robert William
Fraser, Captain Ian
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmogr, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick


Balfour. Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Goldle, Noel B.
Nunn, William


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Bernays, Robert
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Patrick, Colin M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Blindell, James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Borodale, Viscount
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Potter, John


Bossom, A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pybus, Percy John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Raikes. Henry V. A. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, T, B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ray, Sir William


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rea, Walter Russell


Browne, Captain A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Remer, John R.


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Renwick. Major Gustav A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Burnett, John George
Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Robinson, John Roland


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jamieson, Douglas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Christie, James Archibald
Jennings, Roland
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ker, J. Campbell
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Cooke, Douglas
Leckle, J. A.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Spears. Brigadier-General Edward L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spens, William Patrick


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Dickie, John P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Drewe, Cedric
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Summersby, Charles H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKeag, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson, Luke


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Tree, Ronald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)



Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Weymouth, Viscount
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


White, Henry Graham
Womersley, Walter James



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James



Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John

11.25 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
On the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part," the most important Clause of the Bill, a speech was made from this Front Bench, and no attempt has been made to deal with the arguments submitted. What immediately happened was that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), who has been a most valiant supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, made a speech, and thereupon the right hon. Gentleman got up and said: "After that speech there is no need for anything more," and he moved the Closure. It is not suitable that this House should continue to debate this important Bill when the Secretary of State is not prepared to reply to arguments. To anyone who has been listening to the Debate the reason is perfectly obvious. Every time the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make a reply he has made some terrible blunder that has brought protests from either side of the House, and not only from the Opposition. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the right hon. and galiant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) have had to intervene. We all realise that the right hon. Gentleman is under a very great strain over this Bill. He sees one Dominion departing and he is under very great strain over another Dominion, and it is clear that by 11.30 p.m. he is totally exhausted. The fact remains that here we have a very important constitutional matter to discuss.
Anyone who has listened to the debate will have realised that on the whole question involved in Clause 1, ever since the time that the Bill was introduced, hon. Members in all parts of the House have
become more and more concerned when they saw the extremely awkward precedent that was being set and they understood the full implications. Naturally, special points were brought up on each Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to satisfy the House, but we were hoping to get a really coherent defence of Clause I from somebody. A point was put, extremely moderately, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in a short speech—there was no wasting of time—a logical speech, that demanded an answer. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton put forward a very interesting question as to whether the proposals in the Bill were fixed for all time or whether any consideration was going to be given to certain proposals which he had put forward, but the right hon. Gentleman brushed him entirely aside, made no attempt to answer his argument and simply used the brutal force of his majority. I submit that in these circumstances it is clear that the Committee should not continue to sit when we (have a Minister who either cannot or will not reply.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I desire to support the Motion to report Progress. [Interruption] I do not see the need for hilarity because it is not unusual for opposing elements in the House of Commons to find common ground for action. I am supporting the Motion to report Progress because of the plain insult that has been offered to an hon. Member who sits on the Liberal benches and does not support the party to which I belong. The relationship of hon. Members to one another and to the Government would become entirely different to what we have been accustomed if the House were to
allow individual private Members to be subjected to gross and offensive insults such as was offered to the hon. Member. I hope that I take very well all the remarks which may be passed in a humorous way between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, just as I hope he takes them from me, but that is an entirely different story. There is a certain amount of give and take in the course of a rough and tumble Debate, but there is a point where it ceases to be fair exchange in Debate and becomes positive rudeness which would make the work of this House quite impossible if it were to become the practice instead of the exception, and I hope that before we proceed with the business the right hon. Gentleman will offer some amends to the hon. Member and to the Committee. The progress of business and his own dignity would not suffer in any degree by such an action.
Hints have been thrown out that some of us are anxious to obstruct the passage of the Measure. Let me be perfectly frank. My feelings are so strong that I do not want to facilitate its passage. I have no desire to see it on the Statute Book. I think it is an unutterably bad Bill, and the proceedings on the various Amendments, which could have been prolonged, have not been unduly prolonged. It was only necessary at any stage to move the Closure, and on several discussions that we have had I should not have resented it. My hon. Friend and I have been responsible for the main Amendments to Clause 1, and they involved considerable time and trouble to get them in a form which would ensure an opportunity for Debate. I have not spent one minute outside the Chamber yet when we come to debate the Clause standing part which enables a general discussion to take place, which I proposed to use as an opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement indicating that the interests of the people in Newfoundland would be safeguarded in every possible way within his own personal control, the right hon. Gentleman moves the Closure. After one-and-a-half speeches—the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton did not speak at any undue length—and when others in different parts of the House were rising to catch the Chair-
man's eye, the Dominions Secretary moved the Closure.

The CHAIRMAN: The Closure was accepted and passed by the House. The hon. Member must not now question the Closure or the passing of it.

Mr. MAXTON: I am merely objecting to the time at which and the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman rose to move a Motion on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not make any reflection on the time at which the Closure was moved.

Mr. MAXTON: I, of course, accept that Ruling. You are telling me that I must not say anything that casts a reflection on the Chair. I accept that at once.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wrong. I did not mean that at all. It is a question of a reflection on the decision of the House. The House decided on the Closure. The rule is perfectly well known to the hon. Member. It is well known to me because I have suffered from it myself.

Mr. MACLEAN: In discussing a Motion to report Progress because of a grievance that the Closure has been moved in a rather hasty manner by a member of the Government, is it not in order for Members to point out that in their opinion the Closure of the Debate was too hasty—in their opinion?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order.

Mr. MAXTON: I get your point, Mr. Chairman, and I accept it. The fact that the House has decided that the Closure was right at that time makes it right. I accept your decision that that cannot be debated, though I voted in the minority. I shall confine myself, in conclusion, to the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's poposal of the Closure, and again I ask him to put himself right in the eyes of the Committee by stating that his attitude towards private Members is not due to a feeling that because he happens to have the power he will use it offensively to crush out hon. Members in the legitimate exercise of their duties here.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If there is one thing that this House is unanimous about it is that however keenly or fiercely hon. Members may debate any question, or however much they may differ—I have
had 25 years' continuous experience—they will not tolerate from any Member, whatever his position, what I call hitting below the belt or a personal affront. If my hon, Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) or the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) think for one moment that I meant any personal reflection, I assure them at once that nothing whatever of the kind was in my mind. I would recall to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton our conversation in the Lobby only a few hours ago, which confims what I say. If he or the hon. Member for Bridgeton think that there was anything personal towards them on my part I can only say that my remark was not so intended. I now come to the Motion. From 3.45 p.m. until 11 p.m. we have debated Clause 1.

Mr. COCKS: The Amendments to Clause 1.

Mr. THOMAS: Everything relevant to Clause 1.

Mr. COCKS: Vital Amendments to the Clause. Not the Clause itself.

Mr. THOMAS: I presume the Amendments moved were relevant. We have debated them at length, with good temper and I think with general agreement that they all raised questions worthy of consideration. After seven hours, when all the relevant Amendments had been disposed of, the Motion was "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", On that Motion the hon. and Learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) did not add any new contribution to those already offered, except in one respect. He took the opportunity to make it clear that whatever he might have said in the country—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is getting very near the bounds of Order. I cannot understand the point of his remarks, unless he is going to refer to the question of the Closure.

Mr. THOMAS: I was going to say that I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that no new issue was raised in the speeches on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, in that case, the right hon. Gentleman would be out of Order.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. I can understand your Ruling that we must not reflect upon a Ruling of the Chair or a decision of the Committee, but surely was are entitled to reflect upon the action of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Closure.

The CHAIRMAN: No. The Closure has been approved by the Committee and any reflection upon the moving of the Closure is a reflection upon the decision of the Committee.

Mr. Neil MACLEAN: Is it not in Order, in speaking on a Motion to report progress, following a Closure Motion, to refer to the manner in which the Closure has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure what the hon. Member means by "the manner in which the Closure is moved". That might refer to the fact that it had been moved in a loud voice, or in a voice that could not be heard. I must repeat what I have already said. When the Closure has been moved and carried it is not in order to debate or reflect upon the moving of the Closure at all.

Mr. ATTLEE: On that point of Order. It is, I think, in order to state that the Closure was moved without a reply having been made by the Government, and to comment on that fact.

The CHAIRMAN: No. The Committee has disposed of that.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is that not carrying the matter rather far? It is clear that we cannot reflect on the Committee's decision to have a Closure, but the Committee has not come to a decision as to whether it was right or wrong for the Minister not to reply.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Committee decided that it was time to Closure the discussion.

Mr. COCKS: Further to the point of Order. While I respect your ruling that we must not reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's having moved the Closure, may we not reflect upon his motives in moving it?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: I am only concerned to remove, as I hope I have succeeded in doing, any personal feeling in the matter. I hope my hon. Friends the Members for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will accept unreservedly from me my explicit assurance that nothing personal was intended.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I must say that with reference to the incident which occurred just now, to which I must be very careful not to make any reference, I have endeavoured to be as reasonable and friendly as I could, and to ask for a reply on a question in which I thought the Committee would take an interest. I have been supporting the Government, except on one point, all through the day,' and therefore I was a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's action. I fully anticipate that he will take such opportunity as may present itself to deal with the particular point that arises. I fully accept that there was nothing personal in his action, but I look forward with anticipation to the remarks which we think he ought to make on the point in question.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is usual for the Government at this time of night to make some statement as to how long they intend to ask the Committee to sit. I have been here a great number of years, and at what we term the turn of the clock a Motion to report Progress is always taken in order that the Government might make some statement as to the future trend of business. I was wondering if the Patronage Secretary would give us an idea on the subject now. The Prime Minister said he wanted to take four Orders, namely, this, the Unemployment (Money) Resolution, and two other Orders, one relating to potatoes and the other relating to hops. The Prime Minister said he did not intend the House to sit unduly late, but he added, I admit, that they must get the first two Orders. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say, first of all, if it is still his intention to proceed with the other two Orders—that is the Potato Marketing Scheme and the Hops Marketing Scheme—first, and, secondly, if he still intends
to sit throughout the night on the Financial Resolution on the Unemployment Insurance Bill? It is, as he knows, a time-honoured practice that at this time of the evening he should make some statement in order that the Committee may know its future commitments, and I call upon him to make such a statement.

11.51 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I sympathise with the request of the hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government's intention to proceed either with the Potato Scheme or the Hops Scheme tonight. The Prime Minister said at Question Time that we were suspending the Standing Order in order to get the first two Orders, and, if we settle down to business now, we should be able easily to carry out the programme which we have before us. I must, however, point out to the Committee that we have already had one full day on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and another Financial Resolution has only had to be brought in on account of the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We also informed the House this afternoon that, in view of the full day already given to the Financial Resolution, the discussions need not be prolonged, and I therefore hope that the Committee will enable us to get those first two Orders without delay.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does the Patronage Secretary remember that no reply at all was made by the Government on the general discussion during the last Debate on the Financial Resolution on the Unemployment Insurance Bill? The only reply that was given was in response to an Amendment moved from this side. We have not yet had a reply, and is it not highly undesirable, in view of the fact that many hon. Members are obviously very tired, to proceed any further with this Bill to-night if we are to have a repetition of the bad temper of which we have had recent experience? We are entitled to receive a reply from the Government Front Bench on the general provisions of the Financial Resolution. After the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on Monday the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) spoke, and a
number of other hon. Members spoke, and to those speeches we have not yet had a reply.
A very important point was made as to whether certain provisions in the Resolution would not seriously handicap the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preparing his Budget. To those observations no reply at all has been given, and now we are to have a general Debate on this important question in the early hours of the morning. I submit that this is not treating the Opposition fairly. We are a very small number, and we have to throw ourselves largely on the mercy of the House. We are entitled to expect a huge and overwhelming majority like that of the Government to show us, if not mercy, at least some degree of justice, and to hold this Debate on such an important subject in a few hours' time when we are not so fatigued as we are now. I submit that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not persist in demanding the Financial Resolution to-night, it may be possible to make arrangements to get it more easily later on. If, however, he persists in asking for it to-night, it is obvious that we cannot agree willingly.

11.55 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: My recollection of the Debate on the Financial Resolution a few days ago was that two Cabinet Ministers took part in it and a final speech was made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. My recollection is that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) himself rose and moved the Amendment on the topic of the Financial Resolution under discussion. Had the hon. Gentleman not moved the Amendment, but had carried on with the general Debate longer, a reply would have been made on the general Debate. If there had been any complaint that Monday's Debate was inadequate or that the Government had not taken their full share in it, it would have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I have heard no such complaint.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: That Debate took an unusual course, and the whole of it became nugatory owing to an alteration having been made in the Financial Resolution and that Resolution withdrawn so that a new one could be moved. It would therefore have been futile to complain, because we thought we should have another opportunity for discussion.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It was understood on Monday that no reply was made on the general discussion because the Amendment was to be taken and finally disposed of. I understand from my own Front Bench that the Amendment on the Order paper to the Resolution is not going to be moved because a discussion has already been held on it. To that procedure I take no exception. What I am pointing out is that no reply has been made on the general Debate. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer came early in the evening, and we are entitled to ask the Government that a member of the Cabinet shall be put up to reply to the statements made that night. I submit to the Patronage Secretary that it is not our fault if the Government make a mistake and have to withdraw their Financial Resolution. The Government made that mistake, and they must not now ask the House to pay for it. I would ask hon. Members to realise that once the House has parted with the Financial Resolution we shall be gravely limited in the Committee stage of the Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the Financial Resolution yet.

Mr. BEVAN: I am only pointing out how necessary it is to have the most ample opportunity of discussing the Financial Resolution, because, once we have parted with it, we shall be strictly limited in Committee on the Bill. This is an unusual Bill and an unusual Financial Resolution. The passing of the Resolution imposes strict limitations on the Committee stage, and we are therefore entitled to ask for the amplest and best opportunity of discussing its provisions. Therefore I suggest to the Patronage Secretary that the best interests of time would be served if he could give an assurance that after a certain stage has been reached in the present Bill, he will allow the House to adjourn and discuss the Financial Bill some other time.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I will not follow the line of my hon. Friend, but will offer a few observations in order to enable the Patronage Secretary to make up his mind as to his reply. In supporting the Motion to report Progress, I must be careful not
to allude to any incident that took place before the last Division. I only want to allude to the speech which was made by the Dominions Secretary since. I think that we ought, in the interests of the conduct of Debate and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, to report Progress, because it was obvious from that short speech which he made—so much shorter than any of the speeches he has made before, including the speech he did not make before the Division—that he is feeling very tired and is really fatigued. I do not wonder. He has enormous responsibilities'. Even when enjoying his usual rude health he has lost only two of the Dominions. If it is weakened he may lose the other four. We are looking to him to preserve his health in order that he may take on the Home Office and teach the police the sartorial details of which he knows so much more than the present administrators. And apart from the desire to preserve his health we feel that we ought to have the Dominions Secretary here in his full intellectual vigour.
What has happened to-night? We have not got the Law Officers of the Crown. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are enjoying their fees elsewhere. We have not got the Prime Minister to explain in his lucid way the exact position in Newfoundland and if the Dominions Secretary is to be here in a state of mental collapse what is going to happen not merely to the high traditions of this honourable House but of the Empire, of which Newfoundland and ourselves form a part. For those reasons I hope the whole House and all who honour our traditions and love our Empire will support this proposal.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I would like to add a little to the moving speech to which we have just listened. I think it had the effect of adding, perhaps, a stimulant to the Dominions Secretary, but stimulants are not the kind of thing on which the House ought to discuss matters of such very grave importance as are before us now. You may stimulate a person in many ways, but you cannot expect a person acting under a stimulant to be able to give that attention to this extremely important matter which a Minister of the Crown ought to pay to it [Interruption] I had an opportunity of witnessing an exhibition earlier in the evening.
Although my back happens to be turned to the hon. Lady I am quite aware of the nature of the stimulant.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is this conducive to the dignity of the House? Is the argument submitted by the hon. Member related to the Motion to Report Progress? Are we to have the House turned into a sort of bear garden.

Mr. MCGOVERN: Did the hon. Member say "bear garden" or "beer garden"?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) in order in casting reflections on the Committee by saying that it is becoming a bear garden while you are in the Chair?

Mr. McENTEE: I do not feel in the least upset at the very absurd interjection of the hon. Gentleman. I have beer: in the Committee and have heard most of the Debate, and I have taken some little part in it. I am as qualified as the hon. Member to deal with the question which is before the Committee. The point I was trying to raise was in regard to the time and the circumstances in which we are likely to discuss the Financial Resolution that will follow the Bill which we are now discussing. I would ask the Patronage Secretary whether the Resolution that is to be submitted will be entirely different from that which we discussed the other day. There appeared to be some hon. Members who were ready to thank the Government [Interruption] I shall finish my speech, though we have to stay here all night. I do not mind at all. I am trying to make the point with the Patronage Secretary, as to whether the £300,000. which is the amount—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the contents of the Financial Resolution, which is not before the Committee to-night.

Mr. McENTEE: I accept your Ruling, but I have no intention of discussing in any way the Financial Resolution, and I was referring to the fact of its importance which is such that it ought not to be discussed in conditions of levity such as those in which this Bill is being discussed. The discussion ought not to go on in the way it has continued for the last 10 minutes, when matters are of such importance to the country and to the Dominions. I cannot help wondering, in
view of what has taken place, whether we are to be subjected to the same kind of treatment on the Resolution as we have had on the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: For the second time I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is not within the terms of the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. McENTEE: I am trying to draw (attention to the fact that there are other Clauses yet to be taken, and, if we are to be treated in the same way as we have been treated—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is definitely out of order, and I must ask him to resume his seat.

12.10 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have now been discussing for some little time a Motion to report Progress, and I am sure the Patronage Secretary will realise (that, the proceedings having been delayed for various reasons to which I cannot now refer, the House does not seem to be in a frame of mind at present to settle down to the consideration of the major Measures which are still on the Order Paper. Moreover, I agree with other Members that one can see that the Dominions Secretary has had a very long day, and is obviously feeling tired, and it would be unfair to the House to insist on his embarking on a long all-night sitting. I am sure the work he has to do in his office to-morrow will necessarily suffer if we keep him here through the night, and, however much he may be stimulated by the references of another hon. Gentleman, I am afraid he is bound afterwards to experience a relapse and to suffer from that feeling which one gets after stimulation the night before. Therefore, we ask the Patronage Secretary to let us know the term of our toil. If he will say that, after all, this Bill is all he can reasonably expect, in view of incidents to which I am not allowed to refer, it will no doubt be possible to get through its remaining stages in a comparatively short time; but if it means that we are here for the night anyway, well, let us be here till to-morrow morning. In that case I would follow the example of Mr. Jorrocks, and say:
Where I dines I sleeps, and where I sleeps I breakfasts.
I am sure, however, that the sweet reasonableness which always accompanies
every act of the right hon. Gentleman will lead him now to say that, in view of the friendly feeling which has been restored to the House, he will go no further tonight than the Newfoundland Bill, and will find another opportunity for discussing in a calm and reasonable attitude of mind, when we are all fresher, the very important subject of the Unemployment Resolution.

12.13 a.m.

Captain MARGESSON: I always like to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman as far as I can, but the Government feel that they must get this Bill and also the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. I would quote the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken on Monday in the Debate on the Financial Resolution:
I shall merely say that everyone who is interested in the local authorities will be glad of the concession, even though it is only a small one. We will certainly willingly lend our assistance in the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined as being the desirable procedure for putting this matter in order."—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1933; col. 104, Vol. 284.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "That was moving the Chairman out of the Chair! "] It was a question of the procedure to be followed in putting down the new Resolution. It was agreed that we had given a full day for discussion of the Financial Resolution, and therefore it would not be too much to ask the House, when the new Resolution—which only embodies the concession which has been made—had been put down, to let us have that next stage, or rather, continuation of the same stage, without undue discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself says it would be possible to get through the remaining stages of the Bill in a short time, and, if we can turn our minds to business straight away, without further debate on the Motion to report Progress, we can have a short discussion in Committee on the Financial Resolution and still get home in very good time.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I really think it would be better if we took the Unemployment Money Resolution on Monday or Tuesday of next week. If the Patronage Secretary realises that this Bill, which was not looked upon as a serious thing at first, has during the discussion raised issues of great importance which have
been voiced in every part of the Committee, he will agree that there has been no obstruction on this side at all.

Mr. LOGAN: I came to this House filled with the knowledge of its great traditions, and it is because of those traditions that I feel bound to support the Motion to report Progress. The flippancy of some of the remarks that have been made is ill-becoming to the Committee, and indicates that the Committee has reached a stage at which it is not in a condition to discuss important matters any longer [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Judging from some of the remarks one would think this was a Zoo, and not the House of Commons. It is because I think that at the stage which we have reached the mentral capacity of the Committe should be able to be fully exercised, and its function of thinking quietly and well on the matters which it is administering, continued in full, that I think the Motion should be supported. It is patent to every Member that the

Committee is not in a condition to bury decently or to carry on the business of the Committee. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I agree it is nonsense. I am in full agreement with hon. Members. No one can dispute that it is nonsense. That is the very reason why I got up to protest that this nonsensical kind of business should be brought to a close. It is right that all thinking men should point out the unwise course the Committee is about to pursue and I know the great traditions of this House. I know how glorious is the reputation we in this House have to sustain. It is because I want those stars not to be dimmed, and because I want the nation to realise that the sterling vitality of the National Government is not impaired, that I support the Motion.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes 35; Noes 184.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
 [12.20 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield. John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks. Fredrick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Wilmot, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William



Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.
Carver, Major William H.
Goff. Sir Park


Albery. Irving James
Cayzer. Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Goldle, Noel B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Graves, Marjorie


Aske, Sir Robert William
Christie, James Archibald
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cook, Thomas A.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cooke, Douglas
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bernays, Robert
Dickie, John P.
Harbord, Arthur


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Drewe, Cedric
Hartington, Marquess of


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harvey. George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Borodale, Viscount
Eastwood, John Francis
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bossom, A. C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E, W.
Elmley, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bayce, H. Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bracken, Brendan
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)


Broadbent. Colonel John
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
FlemiNo. Edward Lascelles
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ford. Sir Patrick J.
James. Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Burghley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jamieson, Douglas


Burgin. Or. Edward Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jennings, Roland


Burnett, John George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ker, J. Campbell


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Nunn, William
Spens, William Patrick


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Storey, Samuel


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Leckie, J. A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Leech. Dr. J. W.
Penny, Sir George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Petherick, M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'vorh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Potter, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thompson, Luke


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


McKeag, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Walter Russell
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tree, Ronald


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Weymouth, Viscount


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rickards, George William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Morris, John Patrick (Saltord, N.)
Scone, Lord
Womersley, Walter James


Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)



Munro, Patrick
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Major


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
George Davies.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Secretary of State to make advances to Newfoundland.)

12.30 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move in page 2, line 37, to leave out "and the service of the public debt".
It is perhaps the more necessary to move this Amendment because when the Clause itself comes to be discussed there is the possibility that we may be subjected by the Dominions Secretary to the sort of treatment which I do not like to see, and we may not get any opportunity, to which some of us at least think we are entitled, of discussing the Clause itself and of having some adequate reply from the Minister. The Amendment is one which ought to appeal to all the Members of a House which has traditions such as this House. It will be acknowledged by everyone that whatever may be the traditions in other parts of the world we here have proud traditions which we desire to maintain. It will be admitted on all hands that people who are proved to have been wilfully negligent in the management of the affairs of the Dominion over which they have control should be the people to be punished if punishment is to be given to anyone.
There is an old saying in this country, which is worthy of consideration, that a receiver is as bad as the thief. I cannot help feeling that these bondholders to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made reference the other day and who live in various parts of the world, but mostly, I should imagine, in Canada, when taking opportunities to invest money which they presumably had to invest, ought at least to have made some inquiry from some of those international organizations which issue certificates of merit or otherwise in connection with financial matters as to the conditions under which their money was being invested and as to the probability of their having it returned under the conditions of the bond they were entering into. In fact, they appear to have taken no such steps at all. It has been stated in the House to-day and also in the Report itself that there was great anxiety on the part of the bondholders concerned to invest their money and that, in fact, they ran at these investments without any adequate inquiry at all.
The result, of course, is due to the dishonesty of the people responsible for the Government of Newfoundland at that time and because of the fact that the Governor at that time does not appear to me, at any rate, to have taken any steps at all. I think he was present as Chairman at the Government meetings at which many of these transactions went through, but he seems to have taken no trouble to understand them at all. If he did understand them, he certainly did not take any trouble to inform the Government at home of the nature of the trans-
actions or, if he did inform the Government, they on their part did not take any steps to acquaint the House of the gross dishonesty which had taken place.
We are asked in this Bill to guarantee the people who made bad debts and who were almost criminal in their negligence to make any adequate inquiry in regard to the security for the money which they were investing. The probability is that in many cases, at any rate, those who actually made these bad debts were not investing their own money but the money of various corporations with whom they were associated. They were, therefore, investing other people's money, and the investment they made was of such a character that had it not been, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the Government in this country decided to come to their rescue, practically all the money invested, both of their own and of those people for whom they were acting would have been lost.
That is the position, and I have to ask myself what real interest the taxpayers in this country have in paying money to those people who took so little interest in their own affairs and in the affairs of the people for whom they were trustees. Why should the taxpayers of this country be called upon to meet debts in respect of money which was due from the Newfoundland Government? Frankly, I do not see any reason why I, as a taxpayer, should be compelled by the Government to contribute any part, however small that part may be, to meet these bad debts made with people who were definitely dishonest. I see no reason why I should pay any part of that debt at all. I owe these bondholders nothing, and I know of no reason why I should be compelled to pay them.

12.36 a.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am not very clear as to the purpose of the Amendment which he is moving. As I understand the phrase, as used in this country, "service of the public debt" is interest due on the National Debt. The capital is not covered by that phrase, and, in point of fact, if I am right, it is covered by Clause 3 of the Bill and not Clause 2. I shall be glad if the Minister will confirm me in this, for I wish to know exactly what the limitations are.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Of course, if these words were struck out, the service of the public Debt would not be met by moneys provided by Parliament. Under Clause 3 most of the service of that Debt would be met out of the Consolidated Fund. That would be the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: The point I wanted to raise was that the taxpayers of this country should not be called upon to pay either interest or capital. To me it appears dishonest that we should compel our people by law to meet these bad debts that were incurred by people who took no interest in their own affairs.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am now fairly clear that the Amendment which the hon. Member is moving is far more limited than that. The question as to whether this country should be responsible or not for the debt, arises on Clause 3 which deals with the guarantee. On that, it would be in order to argue that we should take no responsibility. The point is, if I understood the Minister rightly, that if the Amendment were carried, instead of the service of the debt—that is the interest—being met out of moneys provided by Parliament, it would be taken out of the Consolidated Fund. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his argument to that point.

Mr. McENTEE: Perhaps I was even more confused than you were, Captain Bourne, as to the meaning of the words. I was under the impression that I was perfectly in order, but, if you say it would be better discussed on another Clause later on, I accept your ruling without hesitation.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The further the Amendment is discussed the more I am convinced that it is out of Order. I regret I did not see it in the first instance. If the fact is, as the Minister says, that: t would be putting a charge on the Consolidated Fund, it is putting a charge which is outside the scope of the Resolution. The hon. Member's point is a perfectly clear one. I had not realised it, but I am afraid I must rule him out of Order.

Mr. ATTLEE: There is a subsequent Amendment to cut out, the words "out of the Consolidated Fund." Therefore,
the effect of the two Amendments is that there would be no charge at all.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I point out that the hon. Member in this Amendment is moving that the service of the debt should not be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. When we come to Clause 3 under which these moneys would then fall to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, if the hon. Member moves an amendment which means that they should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, then the two Amendments together would bring us to a state of complete confusion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that because there are two Amendments down in not the same names they are part of one Amendment. The Amendment now strikes me as being distinctly out of Order.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I just ask for further information, because I had intended to say a word or two upon this Amendment. I am not quite clear on the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman. I hardly think he was entitled to turn to another Amendment to torpedo this one.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It was at the request of the Chair.

Mr. DAVIES: Before deciding whether this Amendment is in Order or not, let us read what the Clause says:
So long as the administration of Newfoundland is vested in the Governor acting on the advice of a Commission of Government constituted in accordance with the said recommendations, the Secretary of State shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make, out of moneys provided by Parliament, advances to the Government of Newfoundland for any of the purposes of the administration of Newfoundland, including the defraying of the expenses of the public services and the service of the public debt.
What is the service of the public debt? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will know that the service of the public debt is in the main the interest.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is why I have decided against this Amendment. If the hon. Member moved the moneys for defraying the administrative
services it would be in order; to move the moneys provided by Parliament to the Consolidated Fund is clearly out of order. That is clearly out of Order because it restricts hon. Members of this House from reducing the payment. This is clearly an Amendment to increase the charge.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: If the service of the debt is not provided under Clause 2, it comes under Clause 3.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is correct. It cannot come under a section if no provision is made. It may be made afterwards by Amendment. Consequential Amendments have to be made here to the Amendment if the charge is transferred from Clause 2 to Clause 3.

Mr. ATTLEE: Clauses 2 and 3 relate to debt subjects and to the services of the public debt. That is the service of the existing public debt of Newfoundland. In Clause 3 we have the guarantee of certain securities of public debt—certain issues of a sort to be guaranteed. That is an entirely different question. What we are complaining of is the service of the existing debt. This is simply taking a liability and giving certain new securities to be brought in through a new administration.

12.43 a.m.

Major NATHAN: It seems to be clear on the face of the document itself and Clauses 2 and 3 deal with entirely different subjects. I would suggest that the carrying of this Amendment, so far from imposing an additional charge upon the moneys provided, would exclude the possibility of funds being provided by this country. That refers to the public debt under Clause 2. Clause 3 relates to the issue of stock. It provides for the guarantee of interest and the guarantee of the sinking fund. It states that these shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund, so that if the point made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is correct the only point would be to bring Clause 3 exclusively into operation—the debt on the Consolidated Fund upon which it has been put by the precise provisions of Clause 3. I think it is sufficiently clear that Clauses 2 and 3 deal with entirely different subjects.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: May I submit with regard to the Amendment which I have been moving that Clause 2 deals with two specific things which the Secretary of State may do. All my amendment suggests is that the power conferred upon him shall be limited, and that only one instead of these two powers shall be vested in the Secretary of State. It has got nothing to do with the other matter referred to by my hon. Friend. I submit that my Amendment should be ruled to be in order and that the interpretation given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an entirely wrong one.

12.46 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I refer to page 246 of the Report. That is the public debt dealt with under Clause 2—the existing and issued public debt. Clause 3 deals with provisions which allow the Treasury to make new issues of stock and not existing public debt. Whether these powers will be used to redeem some of the existing public debt makes no difference. The charge for the existing service of the public debt is dealt with under Clause 2 and could not, under any interpretation of this Bill, fall under Clause 3. There could be no authority for the Treasury under Clause 3 to make any payments towards the interest for the existing public debt. It is only under Clause 2 that that is possible and and the elimination of this item would relieve this country, and this Parliament, from these charges, and they could not be put on any other funds.

12.48 a.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is really a very difficult and technical point. I have no desire to deprive any hon. Member of any opportunity of raising it. It seems that loans issued under the Loans Act, 1933, of Newfoundland, must be regarded as part of the fund. That is a technical matter, and I would be very pleased if the Minister would give his views on this point. The placing of this debt on the Consolidated Fund would increase the charge. If it does, it is not in order.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would be most ready to meet the point if it were advanced in debate, and the Amendment were proved to be in order. I submit that your Ruling is perfectly correct. The
new loan to be raised by the British Government is to be guaranteed and is to be used for redeeming a debt either in cash, or by the issue of new stock for those who desire to have it. That is the short position. The effect of this Amendment would be that in the first place we should be empowered to make advances for any purposes of administration of Newfoundland, excluding the services of the debt itself. But to the extent to which the debt is excluded by the Amendment here moved, it would be covered by Clause 3, and the only effect of the Amendment would be that it would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. When we come to that Clause, hon. Members opposite are moving an Amendment that it should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

12.51 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I point out that the public debt of Newfoundland at the present time does not include anything issued under the Loan Act of 1933. Nothing has been, or can be now, issued except by the Commission or in accordance with its decisions when it is set up. Of course, the Second Schedule has nothing to do with anything with which we are concerned in this House, but is merely a recital without any operative force whatever. The position is that all existing debt of Newfoundland is dealt with in Clause 2—that is, the Schedule which occupies pages 246 to 252 in the report of the Commissioners, For the service of that debt the money—

Mr. SPENS: May I ask why the hon. and learned Member suggests that Clause 2 is confined to the existing debt? It is for the service of the public debt here and ever after. That is the point.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to go on with my speech, what I am suggesting is that the service of the public debt under Clause 2 means money for which the Government of Newfoundland is indebted.

Mr. SPENS: Or may be indebted.

Sir S. CRIPPS: No. The hon. and learned Member is wrong, because it cannot become indebted in any further sums except under Clause 3. The provisions now are that the Governor of Newfoundland cannot issue any more loans. The only person who can issue
them is the Treasury under Clause 3, and in accordance with the Loan Act of 1933 which is one of the Schedules in this Bill. The provisions for which any such issue as can be made are entirely in Clause 3. No other issue can be made.

Mr. SPENS: Under Clause 2 of the Loan Act the Governor in council, that is to say, the future Government of Newfoundland, is going to issue the stock guaranteed by the British Government. The concluding words of Sub-section (1), Clause 2, are that the British Government is to have power to advance money out of moneys provided by Parliament for the present and future expenses of the administration of Newfoundland, including the defraying of the expenses of the public services and the service of the public debt.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am completely at issue with the hon. and learned Member on this point. Clause 2 is providing the means of providing money out of moneys provided by Parliament. That is to say, it is not out of the Consolidated Fund and for the service of the public debt which has so far been incurred by the Government of Newfoundland. As to the administration or ordinary budget expenses, money is to be provided by Parliament. On the other hand, under Clause 3 a complete system of providing money out of the Consolidated Fund for all future issues is made. If the construction of the hon. and learned Member is right, this provides two methods of paying interest on the same issue. He nods his head, but it is so. It says that if at some future date an issue is made under Clause 3 it will be made part of the public debt of Newfoundland, and therefore service can be provided under Clause 2. Therefore, there are two completely different ways of serving the public debt. If the construction of the hon. and learned Member is right, there is a double provision for the payment of interest on the same amount of public debt out of two different funds. That is an interpretation which clearly could not conceivably be put on a Bill or Act of Parliament—that you have two provisions with no direction by Parliament as to which of them may be used.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In so far as this money is not met out of moneys provided by Parliament, it is provided by the
Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund only comes into operation if interest is not met and the guarantee falls to be met. Clause 3 says:
The Treasury may, for the purposes of any issue of stock by the Government of Newfoundland under the provisions of section two of the Loan Act, guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as they think fit, the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, the said stock, and the payments to be made to the sinking fund to be established under the Loan Act.
That means the whole thing—capital, interest, and sinking fund. Any sums required by the Treasury in fufilling the guarantee are to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and, as soon as may be after the guarantee is given, the Treasury shall lay a statement of the account before the House. That means that if the Treasury are going to pay up anything as a result of their guarantee it has got to be out of the Consolidated Fund. Then they cannot provide it with moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the public debt.

Sir S. CRIPPS: There is no direction as to which way Parliament shall find the money.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If they did not provide it the guarantee would fall to be met.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Parliament cannot say to the Treasury, "Here are two funds out of which you can meet this single charge of interest, and we give you no direction out of which you are to meet it." That means that there is an indefinite, indeterminate position. Is the Treasury coming to Parliament to ask for this money or not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and learned Member will agree that we are only seeking to discover the truth in this matter. This does not contemplate that there will be a charge on the finances of Newfoundland for 40 years. The Government may change in Newfoundland, and to the extent to which they are not met by funds of Parliament they will be met under Clause 3 out of the Consolidated Fund if the guarantee fails.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Further to that point, what the Government are guaranteeing is made quite clear in the Second Schedule. It is the credit of Newfoundland. It is not its own payments under Clause 2,
and it is only when the credit of Newfoundland falls short that under Clause 3 the Government guarantee it. They cannot do the same thing by making a subscription to Newfoundland under Clause 2, because otherwise the hon. Gentleman would be asking Parliament to give him two alternative ways of doing the same thing without any direction as to which he is to use.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to this very carefully. It is obviously a very intricate point. I am prepared to allow the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) to proceed on the strict understanding that the service of the debt is limited to interest entirely.

1.2 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I thank you, and I shall try not to transgress. At the point I was speaking when the question arose I was endeavouring to point out that, taking myself as an example, I know of no reason why I should be compelled to guarantee to the bondholders of Newfoundland stock the interest on the money that they lent to Newfoundland. In the same way, I argue that I know of no reason why any British taxpayer should be compelled to pay his taxes for that purpose. After all, one is, I think, naturally inclined to ask if we are to agree to this guarantee and if we are to meet the interest on this money that has been lost by the bondholders to the Newfoundland Government, what return do we British taxpayers get, and for what purpose are we asked to make these loans to pay this money? I know of no reason at all, and I have heard the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Dominions Secretary, and neither of them so far as I heard even gave the slightest reason why the British taxpayer should be compelled to meet what would have been the bad debts of the Newfoundland Government for those who lent money to them.
We have a right to object, and I think, personally, it ought to be the duty of every member of this House who represents the taxpayers in his constituency to object to this ramp, because it is nothing short of a ramp. I cannot help feeling that there is a sort of brotherly
feeling between bondholders in this country and other countries, and when one is attacked, in whatever country it may be, then the brotherhood of bondholders or the freemasonry of bondholders comes into play, and they are prepared to sacrifice other people's money so that their money may be secured. This is what we are doing. We are prepared to sacrifice the money of the people of this country to what would have been a bad debt to the bondholders. I am protesting against this on behalf of the people in my constituency.
If the bondholders themselves had admitted that they were poor people, that the loss would be very heavily felt by them, and that their condition might be as bad as the people in Newfoundland, one might be prepared to concede that, from the humanitarian standpoint, some concession might be made to them along the lines of this Bill. Most of them are people who have, apparently, a considerable amount of spare money for investment, and when they make investments they ought to take the risk of the ordinary investors. Those who have money to invest in this country are expected to take the risks on their own investments and those who have no money to invest are expected by this Bill to take the risks and responsibility of making good the losses of those people who lent money to Newfoundland. I think, frankly, that this is disgraceful to our people, many of whom are in a very poor state. I have heard a good many Members some of whom are now sitting on the Front Bench talking about the poor widows. We have heard a good deal about the poor widows. We are not considering them, but large corporations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is really going beyond my ruling. It seems to me to be really a question of loss of money that comes under the guarantee. It is a simple question whether an estimate would be provided for the service of the public debt, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep close to that point.

Mr. McENTEE: I think it was interest with which I was dealing. There is no difference between money paid in interest or principle. I am objecting to both. I submit that it is in perfect order, if the taxpayers of this country are being
called on to pay that interest, and it is against that that I am raising my objection. I submit that the poor people in this country are being taxed more heavily than they ought to be taxed so that interest may be paid on debts incurred by people, many of whom are foreigners, and I make the strongest possible protest against it. I hope the Committee will give it serious consideration in the interests of the people in their own constituencies, and that they will refuse the sanction for which the Government are asking in this Bill.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: This is the first occasion in which I have intervened in this very important Measure, and I do so not with the intention of prolonging debate at all. The main reason I move the deletion of these words is a very simple one; it is to show the difference in the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the interest on the Newfoundland debt and the attitude of the same Government towards the debt on our own Unemployment Fund. Quite frankly, it is a very serious difference. People in Newfoundland whom we have never seen say to the Government when they have contracted a debt that we must come to their aid and guarantee the interest and pay their debt, while our own people at home who are unemployed have to find the money themselves to meet the interest and the capital expenditure upon the debt incurred by the Unemployment Fund. I say there is a distinction to be drawn in that connection.
I now turn to something which is very much more intimate in this connection. I should like to know, first of all, what is the interest now payable on the several debts to which this Clause relates? When I turn to the description of the public debt on page 246 and onwards I find no reference at all to the amount of the interest. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side must not imagine that because we are Labour men we know nothing at all about finance. Some of us happen to have had to do with money on behalf of our societies, and we know something of the value of interest payable on investments. I ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to tell us what is the rate of interest on each of the several items of the Newfoundland debt, and what rate of interest is going to be
guaranteed to people out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Clause? This is a strange state of affairs. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that I have actually read this Report from cover to cover. It is the most amazing document I have ever read. You would imagine we were dealing with a, country in the Balkans, and not one within the British Empire. Everything that happens in Newfoundland is happening in the Balkans every year, and I should have expected something better in relation to public debts and the interest thereon within the British Empire than is here disclosed.
I ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to answer one or two questions. As far as I can gather from this document, the public debt is roughly 100,000,000 dollars. I take it that the value of the dollar in Newfoundland is approximately the same as the dollar in the United States and in Canada? Some hon. Members have been in Newfoundland. The nearest approach I have made to that country was to pass it on the left when going through the Belle Isles and the St. Lawrence River. I do not know very much about the internal affairs of Newfoundland, but it would be very interesting to find out what rate of interest was contracted in respect of these debts. There is going to be a difference in the interest payable on the debt, as it is transformed under this Clause, in comparison with the interest on the debt now under discussion. I have no title to quarrel with learned Members who practice at the Bar, but I quite understand it is the intention of the Government, under this Clause, to see the whole debt of Newfoundland converted into one new debt at a lower rate of interest than is 'at present payable. The old practice of conversion would be brought into operation in this connection. I say this to prove to hon. Members that Labour understands just a little about finance.
I pass on to analyse the type of debt that we are going to deal with, and the amount of interest thereon. We have a few hundreds of thousands of dollars in these items here. The first is 480,000 dollars, another is 320,000 dollars, then there is 60,000 dollars, and so on, but there is no indication against these figures as to where the debt has been contracted. In all the docu-
ments issued from Government Departments in this country, and in almost every other country in the world, when you have items of debt set out, there is at least an indication as to where it lies. None of us ought to owe a pound without knowing to whom we owe it. Let us see what the Newfoundland Government has done in the past in relation to the contraction of debts. First of all, there is a debt of 973,000 dollars to repay debentures and floating liabilities to English and local banks. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have been very eloquent, and I have applauded them all along in their attack on bondholders. This is an item which definitely plays into their hands; it is contracted with English banks. If it had been contracted with Scottish banks, probably hon. Gentlemen would not have said quite so much about it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I could give reasons why we should have said more.

Mr. DAVIES: Will hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway explain to us why they object so much to paying English bondholders in particular? [HON. MEMBERS: "Are there no Welsh bondholders?"] No. Welsh people would never lend money to a country like Newfoundland. They know too much about the Governments of these countries to lend them any money whatsoever. I wish the Dominions Secretary were here, because nearly all this money which constitutes the Newfoundland debt is a debt on railways. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, being an ex-railwayman, would be able to tell the Committee a little more as to why nearly all this money has been lent on railways. The most amazing thing of all in connection with the railways of Newfoundland is that 5,000 acres were given free as a gift to the builder of the railway for every mile of railway he constructed. In the end, I suppose, there was not enough land in the whole of Newfoundland to give away. The purchase of the Newfoundland railway—and this is the present debt—has cost them 1,500,000 dollars. Just imagine a country like Newfoundland purchasing a railway within its own territory. One would have imagined that this railway would have belonged to the Government of Newfoundland from the beginning. There is another item I do not understand. Perhaps the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury will enlighten me. This particular item is the repurchase of railways for 2,500,000 dollars. That seems to indicate to me that the State of Newfoundland had owned their railway once upon a time and sold it to a private company. They repurchase it. That is a terrible state of affairs.

The CHAIRMAN: I have only just come into the Chair. I have difficulty in understanding what this has to do with the service of the debt.

Mr. DAVIES: The real point I am trying to raise is that the service of the public debt is the interest payable on that debt, and the administrative cost of dealing with the payment of the interest. On the debt with which I am dealing the interest is to be payable in future out of moneys provided by this Parliament I hope to find that I am in order.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member must explain; I do not see how this relates to public debt.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The public debt is made up of the items on pages 246 to 252 at the end of the Report. That gives the items on which the various loans have been expended. I think the hon. Member is entitled, in dealing with the desirability of this Parliament defraying the interest upon that debt, to comment on the items making up the debt and the desirability, or otherwise, of guaranteeing it.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see at present how the hon. Member covers the point.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The debts are specific sums raised for specific purposes under specific Acts of Parliament which authorise the expenditure of the money upon certain specific purposes and, therefore, the debt is identifiable with the purposes for which it was raised. That appears on page 246, which gives sums for Newfoundland railways. The money was raised for that purpose, and upon it the interest is now chargeable, that being one of the provisions under Clause 2, the service on which is being provided out of moneys to be provided by this House in the future. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to comment on whether it is desirable we should pay the services of the debt.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I will let the hon. Member proceed with his speech, but with the warning that I do
not quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's contention. I do not think we can go back on details of the expenditure, but must deal with the loans the services of which are covered.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to wander down the whole of the list. I would like to give one or two illustrations to show what we are asked to do in the way of shouldering payments out of moneys provided by this Parliament. Let me give one case. Really the hon. Gentleman must give us an answer to one or two of these. The more I look into the debts the more terrible the situation appears. There is a debt of a municipality of 100,000 dollars. We are going to shoulder the responsibility of the interest on the debt of that municipality. As far as. I can see, it does not own its tramways, and I do not know whether it owns it own water supply. I feel that the Government are in a serious difficulty in helping to solve this Newfoundland problem. We ought to have more details about these debt charges than have been given to us up to now. How does it come about that we are asked to pay the interest, through our own taxpayers, when we are told that the personal savings of these people amount to 26,000,000 dollars? We are told by the Commission's report, I think, that the Newfoundlanders regard these savings as sacred. If people hold that view, we ought to turn round and say that our savings are sacred too. We ought to have some information from the hon. Gentleman how it comes about that we are called upon to undertake this responsibility when the people of Newfoundland—only 260,000 of them—have personal savings amounting to 26,000,000 dollars.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that is too remote for me to allow.

Mr. DAVIES: The issue seems to be a very narrow one. I must conclude by pointing to one other item which I do not quite understand. After all, we are shouldering this particular responsibility along with other responsibilities because of the finances of Newfoundland. That is on account of the way they have mismanaged, and the way the Government there have conducted themselves. I have always thought that the economic condition of a country could be measured very largely by its capacity to meet public debt services, and that this depended
mainly upon the volume of imports and exports. The figures on that store in the Royal Commission's Report are not very much worse than our own and, if that be a factor in the economic condition of Newfoundland, we ought to consider twice before we shoulder its responsibilities. For these reasons I have no doubt that we are incurring a grave responsibility indeed, and I have no hesitation in supporting the deletion of these words.

1.29 a.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: We should have made clear the answer to one or two financial points. I take it that this is a comparatively narrow point. It is that our liability is to make good the failure of the revenues of Newfoundland to meet its expenses for the ordinary current work of the Government and the interest on the national debt. Clause 2 uses the words that there shall be working balances the Treasury consider adequate to meet the liabilities, in so far as the revenues fall short of the amount required. Are we entitled at this stage to ask the Financial Secretary what estimates his advisers have made as to the deficit; whether it is likely to be larger next year, and on what figures they base their estimate?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is discussing the whole subject of the Clause rather than the particular Amendment regarding the question of the services of the public debt.

Sir P. HARRIS: I think I can make my point perfectly clear. We are discussing an Amendment that we should leave out the words "defraying the expenses of the public debt."

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. baronet is wrong. The Amendment is to leave out the words "and the service of the public debt" not "defraying the expenses."

Sir P. HARRIS: "defraying the expenses of the service of the public debt"—if we leave out those words our liability will be decreased.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I am right. "Defraying" applies to two things—(1), expenses; (2), service of the public debt. We are now discussing service of the public debt and not expenses.

Sir P. HARRIS: The service of the public debt must be found by revenue in one form or another. Surely we are entitled to find out what our risk and liability is if we keep these words in.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. baronet means that he wants to know what the expenses of the public services are.

Sir P. HARRIS: Yes

The CHAIRMAN: Then he is not in order.

Sir P. HARRIS: I want to know by what we shall economise by eliminating these words. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury must have an estimate. If these words art omitted, we want to know whether our liability will be changed. If the revenue is not likely to be large enough to meet the service of the public debt, we are justified in hesitating to pass these words.

1.33 a.m.

Major NATHAN: I support the Amendment, but I approach it from a rather different angle. I object to the British Parliament finding out of British funds the service of these loans for these reasons. In the first place, we are asked by this Bill to provide moneys from Parliament—that is, from the pocket of the British taxpayer—for the service of loans in Newfoundland which have been raised for purposes for which public loans of that character are not allowed to be raised in this country—for example, railway loans, and loans for other public works and services. That seems to me to be a very substantial reason why we should not provide money from this country for the service of loans in another country. Certainly it is very unlikely that the present Government would introduce such a loan. In the second place, I think it must be assumed that when lenders lend money they do so having looked at all the surrounding circumstances and make their bargain accordingly: and the reason why an investor put money into Newfoundland was because he liked the look and liked the credit of Newfoundland better than, say, Peru. He had a free choice of investment all over the world and chose Newfoundland. The investment has turned out badly. But that is no reason why the British taxpayer should accept
responsibility. If every time I made a bad bargain I could ask the British Government to make good my mistakes I should be a much happier man.
There is another objection. It is about time that the public at large understood what is the meaning of a trustee security and realised that it is not a guarantee by any Government, but simply a protection of a trustee against losses incurred by an investment. It is a safeguard and not a guarantee either of capital or interest. It is really time that that was understood by the public. Also, it is doubtful in a very grave degree whether many of the securities coming within the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, and thereby becoming trustee securities, should be there at all. I want to know whether, if it had not been Newfoundland but had been Australia with an infinitely larger public debt—and there were grave apprehensions not long ago that such a situation would arise—would the British Government have proposed the service of the Australian public debt to be borne by the British Parliament? Is it not rather a bad precedent to set? It is said that you ought to provide this money for the purpose of maintaining the credit of the Empire. I am very anxious that the credit of the Empire should at all times be maintained. But it has been destroyed by Newfoundland. You are not maintaining the credit of the Empire by saying that the British Government will come to the rescue, unless you are prepared to go one step further and say that you will come to the rescue of every defaulting part of the Empire. Is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury prepared to say that the British Government will accept that very heavy responsibility? Unless he does, there is no justification for this provision in the Clause.

1.39 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am rather at a loss to know just what the liability is that we are accepting. Under Clause 2 the provision is made for defraying two things—the expense of the public service and the service of the public debt. Looking at the Budget speech for this year made last June, on pages 26 (3-271, I find an estimated deficit of 2,145,267 dollars for the current year, in the middle of which this Commission will presumably take over the financial provision. That sum, as I judge from the statement
on page 264, is arrived at after balancing the receipts and expenditure, the expenditure including an item of interest on public debt for 5,200,000 dollars. This is roughly half the total expenditure on all services in Newfoundland. Take the loss of 2,145,000 dollars, which is less than the interest on the public debt. In other words, if there were no interest to be paid on the public debt, there would have been a surplus of 3,000,000 dollars, and that very surplus could have been expended to the extent of nearly 60 per cent. on the services in Newfoundland. If we eliminate this item of the service of the public debt, we shall thereby, as I understand, enable the money we contribute from this country to be utilised for the extension of the various social services in Newfoundland. It is an alternative, given a certain sum of money. Assuming we make up the deficit of 2,145,000 dollars, and we can eliminate this item of the service of the public debt, then we can give that entirely towards an increase of social services.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that by leaving these words out, there still remains an obligation upon this country to provide the whole of the deficit, including these services?

Sir S. CRIPPS: No. Sir.

The CHAIRMAN: Then I am afraid he cannot discuss what would be done.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On that point, I am trying to argue as to the effect of the omission of these words. At present, Parliament is giving authority to the Treasury to make an advance to the Government for all purposes. I am pointing out that if we give only the grant of money that will be voted by Parliament, and say it is not to be used for the service of the public debt, but only for expenditure under the other heads, then there will be a larger sum available for expenditure in Newfoundland. I am canvassing the relative merits, assuming that Parliament would be prepared to vote the given sum—I take 2,000,000 dollars as an example—and allowing that to be expended on public services only, that would be the effect of the amendment we are proposing. I would point out that these various expenditures on the public services which amount to 5,764,000
dollars can by that device be made more ample without incurring any further charge upon Parliamentary funds in this country. That is to say, by our not supporting the foreign bondholders, we can give a similar or equivalent amount of money to increase the expenditure on the public services, and anyone who reads through the Budget speech will see how extremely starved the whole of these public services are. Time after time the Minister regrets the insufficient provision for the public services education, poor law maintenance and the other public services, and were we to adopt this Amendment we should then, at the same expense, divert money to assist Newfoundland, and not make payment to the bondholders. This would enable more education to be given, and better poor law relief which is absolutely at the rock bottom at the present time. If there were a referendum in this country at this moment as to whether we ought to contribute to the bondholders or devote the money to public services, I am sure that the people would be unanimous to devote it to the public services.
Let me look at this from another angle. It is a very striking thing that the Government should select as beneficiaries the people referred to in the proposal. The first thing one noticed is the large sums in temporary loans bearing interest at a high rate. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would throw light on these loans. All these temporary loans are by Canadian banks, and not British Banks. I really do not understand why the people in this country should pay interest on loans made by Canadian banks in order that the Government of Newfoundland should pay interest on its public debt, because that is all these loans were for. These sums which form part of the public debt of Newfoundland are held entirely in Canada—Canadian bank loans—and not by residents in this country. There was the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Royal Bank of Canada and so on. They allowed these overdrafts to the Government of Newfoundland, knowing, as they must have known from the years 1931 to 1933, what the state of Newfoundland was. Now, having made bad loans like banks here might have made to Hatry, they come and ask through the Government of Newfound-
land that we should guarantee the services of these loans. I very strongly object—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks, he will see that that would come in on Clause 3.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On that point, may I point out that the Deputy-Chairman was quite sure that to discuss as far as interest was concerned was in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The services of loans are what we are dealing with, not the guarantee.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not dealing with the guarantee but with the services, and whether it is necessary to pay interest on these sums which Parliament is undertaking to provide. I am referring to the money to be paid for the interest on these Canadian loans. There is another matter to which I wish to draw the Financial Secretary's attention. One of these loans in respect of which we are going to pay the services was raised in Canada in 1932. It amounted to 2,500,000 dollars, when it was obvious that everybody knew what the state of Newfoundland was, and the rate of interest was 5½ per cent. Well, 5½ per cent. in 1932 was a very high rate for anything like a good security, and therefore the speculative nature is shown by the high rate of interest at which it was issued. Again, there was the debt issued to mature on 30th June, 1947—the Canadian Fund it is called. I do not see why these Canadian people should take highly speculative investments at a high rate of interest in Newfoundland in 1932, and then be provided with moneys out of funds provided by Parliament. There are other loans as recently as 1930. The last loan was for 5,000,000 dollars. I do not know whether it was issued in London or in Canada, nor indeed, can I tell from these loans at all where they were issued. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any information to give us as to where they are held. They were all in dollar amounts, but I presume that where they were issued in sterling they have been translated into dollars. Where it says they were merely gold or Newfoundland bonds, I do not know whether they were issued locally or not. It is a matter of some importance that if one is going to be kind to bondholders, one may as well be kind to British bondholders. I
see no reason why one should give any further donation to the New York bondholder. He had his dollar last summer when he got £5,500,000 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not his turn now to come round with the hat again just yet.
This matter, also, has some reflection on the liability of Canada for taking on some portion of this burden which we are asked to assume. For these reasons we feel that this Amendment should be made. It would then have the effect of seeing that any money which Parliament is prepared to provide should not go either to the American or Canadian bondholder who has speculated in Newfoundland. Unfortunately for him, he has come off badly, but I daresay in other speculations he has come off well, and what he has lost on the swings he has made up on the roundabouts. Instead, it should go to the people in Newfoundland—in the social services, such as relief of the poor, education, better facilities of all kinds, to which, as I understand the speeches of the Government, are what they really wish it to go. We are here providing the Government with a very convenient means of giving expression to what which they profess to be their desire.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Amendment has been viewed from two aspects, one a purely technical aspect presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the other the broad question of whether or not we should allow Newfoundland to default. On the technical point, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that if we did not meet the service of these loans out of moneys provided by Parliament, we should have to meet them out of the Consolidated Fund under another Clause. I agree that there may be something in his point of view that some portion of the public debt might perhaps be excluded, but I think he will meet me by admitting that, as regards the major part of it, it is now to be guaranteed, and will therefore fall to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund if there is any default on interest. I should not think he would dispute that point.
Anxious as I am to admit that there may be something in the case he presents, I think at any rate he will agree
that the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable Newfoundland to balance her Budget, and to enable her to meet her debts, and thus free her from the necessity of default. If we are not going to help Newfoundland to that extent, of course the whole Bill falls to the ground, and there is no purpose in the discussions which we have been having the whole of this sitting and on previous occasions. I cannot tell—nobody can—in exactly what fashion each of the debts raised in Newfoundland in the course of the long past has been employed—whether honestly or dishonestly. I am dealing now with the point made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who asked a question about the railways. I could not be expected to answer that. I am dealing, on behalf of the Government, with a very broad question: Should we, or should we not, meet the obligations of Newfoundland and guarantee a loan for that purpose? I think we should; and the Government think we should.
The Government further think that the onus of default would be felt not only on the shoulders of the bondholders, but on the shoulders of the population of Newfoundland. The Royal Commission have pointed out with great eloquence the sorry consequences of default, and they have definitely stated that if the country were not in a position to raise the money, the standard of living of the whole people would be decreased. Yet, in spite of that, hon. Gentlemen to-night have said that the money in the savings banks ought to be first to be employed before any assistance is given to the country. I would point out, in order to remove misconception, that all those who apply for relief in Newfoundland arc required, before relief is given, to sign an affidavit that they have no resources.

Mr. McGOVERN: What about the bondholders?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member will appreciate that I am dealing with one point at a time. It has been stated to-night that there is money in the savings banks, and I am merely pointing out, in reply, that all those who apply for public relief in Newfoundland are completely destitute and resourceless. If everything in the savings banks were distributed among the population, it would only amount to eighty dollars a head.

Mr. McGOVERN: DO the bondholders have to sign that?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. The hon. Gentleman and myself disagree about the bondholders. I have put the point of view that if Newfoundland defaults—and, indeed, if any country defaults—on its obligations, the people who suffer are the poor because no further money can be borrowed for public works or any other purpose. You have to make up your mind—and this is the whole issue: Are you going to be a country which meets its debts or are you not? Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that there is some advantage to be obtained from default, and we, on the other hand, think otherwise. That is the true issue. I pass from that to answer certain specific questions put to me about the cost of meeting these obligations. As the result of guaranteeing the obligations of Newfoundland and enabling her to borrow on a lower interest basis, namely, at 3 per cent., we shall save her £350,000 a year. The precise treatment to be meted out to each category of bondholder is laid down in full detail in the White Paper, and I hardly think the Committee would expect me to go through these particulars again. The hon. Gentleman selected certain loans provided by the Canadian banks and asked me what percentage of interest was charged. I think it was 5½ per cent. for the year 1933.

Sir S. CRIPPS: 5½ per cent. for the year 1933.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the hon. Gentleman with his experience will agree that these loans were presumably made, by the Canadian banks before this Bill was introduced. They were asked to provide certain moneys to a State in difficulties, and they lent money which was secured upon the Customs. Part of the effect of our proposals will be to relieve these assets. The Canadian banks will be paid off as well as other secured loans. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they are dealt with in the White Paper, and he would not expect me to go over them again. If there is any specific information required I shall be only too happy to supply it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Why should we accept this responsibility in this country for these Canadian banks and bondholders?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought I had answered that question in this way: At a certain point, a critical juncture, we offered to take over the obligations. We had no say in the contraction of these obligations. If we had been the borrowers, lower rates would have been paid. We came to the assistance of the daughter country and, whatever the terms on which she may have borrowed, we are prepared to meet the obligation. I agree that this is an occurrence without precedent. This is a Dominion surrendering its independence and coming to this country, proud in the desire not to default, and asking us to take over her administration. I do not think that can be considered a precedent. I think Newfoundland has acted in a way with which we can all sympathise, and we have performed an action of which, although it may cost us up to 1936 £2,000,000, we have no cause to be ashamed.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: There is one reason why the hon. Gentleman should say that this is not a precedent. This is not the first time in the last two years that we have been asked to shoulder the probable losses made by capitalists and speculators. It is not very long since we had to shoulder a loan in which we transferred from the Bank of England to the shoulders of the people of this country the loans made to Austria. Why should we take the whole of the burden. Newfoundland is part of the British Empire, and we are going to pay debts all over the world. We do not know who the people are to whom we are going to pay this money. If they are all in the British Empire, the hon. Gentleman might make an appeal to them to help. I think that Canada might have paid her own nationals. I am rather suspicious of this business altogether. We know that we have had a series of extremely corrupt Governments in Newfoundland, and I should have liked to have known a great deal more about the rest of these loans. I should have liked to have known who holds the stock.
We had an extremely illuminating parallel case last June. We had then an extraordinary case in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward to help people who had speculated in 5½% gold Bonds. We asked who were the
recipients of the dollars, and he said some might be in the City of London. I put down a question, and the House will recollect, that the cost was about £7,000,000. I found that nearly 55,000,000 dollars of that was held in New York. In that case we had the satisfaction of making a present of a good many millions to the citizens of the United States of America who were suffering because of the action of their own Government in repudiating their own obligations. That kind of generosity is becoming a characteristic of the present National Government. It is international, so far as advances are concerned. We are being asked in every possible way to pay up the debts of other people. There is a parallel case of this. We are going to meet the services of public debts under the Ottawa and other agreements. We are actually to pay money for the payment of the services of the public debts of Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine.
We have put down this Amendment because we do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the way to do it. We believe that it would be much better frankly to say that Newfoundland had gone bankrupt. I believe then you would have taught a useful lesson to the other Governments overseas. That would also be a useful lesson to investors. We would then be free of the unjust obligations of the bondholders for the service of the public debt. You could then have started to make experiments in giving Newfoundland decent government and administration arid a decent economic system. We are giving encouragement to everybody to think that if they invested their money in any part of the Empire it does not matter. It does not matter how much the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Dominion concerned say that this country is not responsible. The Imperial sentiment will always mean that if the boy is brought up in court the old man will foot the bill. That is the position between ourselves and the Dominions, and the hon. Gentleman says that it is not a dangerous precedent, or he says that it is not a precedent. He does not realise that the feeling for the Mother Country is the same as that of the boy who writes home and desires money. I have always seen in the Imperial Conference an extraordinary readiness in this
respect. This is an extraordinary encouragement to any part of the Empire to think that it can spend its money as it likes, and that the honour of the Empire means that in the long run the Mother Country will foot the bill and that, if it is a Conservative Government here, it will put it on the backs of the workers.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish the hon. Member who has just spoken had explained to the House what happens when all the peoples of the world come and ask father to pay his own debts. Then will come what is known as the "show down". I have never taken the view, in the whole course of these discussions, that we should allow Newfoundland to default. I have always assumed that it was not practical politics to suggest that to the present Government. But surely there is some middle course between complete default and acting in a foolish profligate manner. I support the Amendment, because in the last 12 months I think we have deliberately not merely stepped in to prevent reforms but to boost the value of bad stock on the market. It is at a premium now. We not merely intervened to an extent to prevent default, but we made Newfoundland stock have an entirely fictitious value in relation to the resources of the country. It is one thing to say we cannot have these bonds becoming wastepaper in the stock markets of the world, but it is an entirely different thing to say that we will boost them up to the sky by giving them a backing which we would not give to any investment in this country, whether municipal, local authority, public undertaking, Electricity Commission, or any other body inside this country—a one hundred per cent. guarantee that the resources of the nation would be behind them.
I protest against this particular item in Clause 2 which places the responsibility for the whole service of that debt on this nation and boosts that debt to a maximum point in so doing. We are entitled to ask from the Government that their Imperialistic sentimentalities shall not carry them into the region of doing things that are absolutely stupid from the business point of view. We gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer £3,000,000
to play with to keep our credit right in the markets of the world and our currency on a sound basis. He could have had the whole of this debt eight months ago for about two-thirds of its market price of what we are pledging ourselves to to-night if we allow this Clause to go unamended. It is preposterous that a Government having at its call the best financial expert advice should handle the affairs that it does handle on the worst possible basis for this nation. When this debt comes right back to us we shall have it at an enhanced value that nothing in Newfoundland justifies but is only given to the stock by the actions of this House at this moment. You are adding to Great Britain's indebtedness something in the region of £5,000,000 because of the fact that at a quarter-past 2 in the morning to-day the average member of the House of Commons is not sufficiently wide awake—[Interruption]—I am not now referring to the shift which has just come from bed, but to those who have been on the job all day. If that does not apply to my hon. Member opposite, then his case is just a case of gross carelessness. The House of Commons, quite irresponsible at a quarter-past 2 o'clock in the morning, is not prepared to apply its mind to realising that it is possibile to be an Imperialist and have a strong objection to financial default without acting like a spendthrift and profligate. I know it is no good appealing to men who will say: "We know our Dominions Secretary, his political reliability, his high business capacity, that he is a financial expert, and that anything he asks us to do we will do." That is the mood of the House. Therefore, I do not attempt to impress a few commonsense arguments against that mood. Fortunately, I am a free man who can walk into the lobby and oppose it and will not have it on my conscience.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I do not want to intervene in this Debate, but there was an observation made by the Financial Secretary when he said that a country which defaulted on its obligations could not obtain credit. I really must ask him if he is expressing the view of the Government in this matter, for France has defaulted in its War debt payments to the United States of America.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there must be some misunderstanding for the hon. Gentleman was talking about Newfoundland.

Mr. BRACKEN: In his reply he used the general example of a country which defaulted on its obligations, and could not obtain any credit in any part of the world.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. Friend could not have been conscious of the fact that I was relating my statement to what appeared in the. Report on Newfoundland.

Mr. BRACKEN: I now see what the hon. Gentleman means. He should have used more correct language.

2.21 a.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: We cannot accept what the Financial Secretary has said that the people of Newfoundland are likely to have some benefit. There is no evidence that the people of this country have had any benefit from this ré gime, and there is no prospect, as far as we can see, that the people of Newfoundland are likely to obtain any benefit. At a time when the conversion was going through the House of Commons, the rate of interest was reduced to 3½ per cent. We know now that the loan over there was at the rate of 5½ per cent. There ought to be some investigation into that matter, and before we can agree to this Bill we ought to know the result of that investigation. I do not think it is right to pay interest on a loan at 5½ per cent. while 3½ per cent. was being paid over here.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that this is an opportunity of warning the hon.

Gentleman, and also other hon. Members, that, owing to the way in which the Debate has proceeded, we have been discussing very fully a question which, as I reminded the hon. Gentleman on the front Bench, comes on the next Clause. I only want to remind hon. Members of that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not want to press this matter, except to make a very sincere protest. Perhaps later in the morning we shall be discussing the Unemployment Bill, and, of course, the grant to distressed areas. That is an indication of the generosity of the Government of this country to its own people compared with what they do for bondholders. We had no knowledge of where these people live or their necessities, and we cannot conclude from the speech of the Financial Secretary that the poor people who are living in the distressed areas of Newfoundland are likely to have any benefit from this money. We arrive at this conclusion from the action of the Government to the poor people of this country, such as the people in the distressed areas in South Wales and other parts who are reduced to great distress.

The CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Member that he is going far from the subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept your ruling, Sir Dennis.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 27.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
 [2.26 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Christie, James Archibald
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cooke, Douglas
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bernays, Robert
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goff, Sir Park


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goldie, Noel B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Graves, Marjorie


Borodale, Viscount
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W).


Bossom, A. C.
Dickie, John P.
Grimston, R. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, John Francis
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elmley, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Harbord, Arthur


Burghley, Lord
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hartington, Marquess of


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Spens, William Patrick


Howard, Tom Forrest
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Storey, Samuel


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Summersby, Charles H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Penny, Sir George
Sutcliffe, Harold


Ker, J. Campbell
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Thompson, Luke


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Leckie, J. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles,)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tree, Ronald


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Weymouth, Viscount


McKeag, William
Runge, Norsh Cecil
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rickards, George William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



Marsden, Commander Arthur
Scone, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McEntee, Valentine L.



Daggar, George
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any such payments in respect of the service of the public debt shall only be made to individuals after a committee, set up by the Treasury, shall have made full investigation into the needs of such persons to receive such payments in accordance with a standard set forth in regulations made by the Treasury."—[Mr. Buchanan.']

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. I call upon the hon. Member to move his next Amendment.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "thirty-six," and to insert "thirty-four."
I am sorry, but I thought an Amendment dealing with a means test for bondholders was in order. It would have saved a good deal of money, and I know the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
takes a great deal of interest in that. I knew, too, that I should get the support of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on a means test. The Amendment I am moving is a simple one. Indeed, 'all the Amendments to-day have been couched in most moderate terms, and we on this side have adopted a moderate attitude. We form moderate opinions, and we tell the Committee to look at it in the same reasonable way. We are proposing to put 1934 in place of 1936. As the Bill stands, until 31st December, 1936, any sum that is given will be by way of grant. We propose to limit the granting of money to 31st December, 1934, and we think the procedure outlined in the Bill should start to operate as from the end of 1934.
The Bill proposes that any sum granted is by way of grant, but that after 1936 any sum granted can be by way of loan, or under such other conditions as the Treasury may in their wisdom seek to impose. We think that if they are given up to the end of 1934 for grants, that is a sufficient
burden on the ordinary taxable capacity of this or any other country, and that thereafter they should not be put in a privileged position of receiving grants. After 1934, they should be put on the basis which the Bill suggests should operate after 1936. I would like the Financial Secretary to say why it is that such a long period is given for the purpose of grants, and why it should not be limited in the way we propose? We can quite imagine that one of the difficulties of the Financial Secretary is that of Parliamentary procedure, but I cannot see a reasonable man like he is refusing it. I remember that when he was in Opposition he often got annoyed at the Government not accepting his reasonable propositions, and I look forward to hearing him say that he will not do, as a member of the Government, the things of which he complained when in Opposition.
The only reason he could have for not accepting this Amendment is that it would mean a Report stage for the Bill, 'and that the Government do not want to occupy any more Parliamentary time at this period. If, however, the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will get our Amendment moved in another place, we will accept it, because we know he is an honourable man and will not break his word. Therefore, I move my Amendment, the object of which is, briefly, that whereas under the Bill grants would be up to the end of 1936, and that thereafter there could be loans under conditions specified by the Treasury, we think that if they receive a year of grants it is ample, and that thereafter any moneys so used should be obtained by way of loans or under conditions that the Treasury may see fit to impose.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the Amendment which has been moved. I think it is an extremely moderate request and one which might be complied with by a Government which is pledged to economy. I have watched the proposals made in this House from every angle, and I have not seen very much headway being made, or many concessions being given by the Government. I am always told by the older and wiser people in politics that the way to ap-
proach Governments is to be moderate in your requests and gentlemanly in your conduct; that you should plead with them, and that then you will always get your reasonable desires. I have never been convinced of it, but I am. willing even at this late hour to be convinced that with a moderate request and gentlemanly conduct you can get concessions in this House. If that is so, I am prepared to practice that. We have been here from a quarter to four up to the present time of a quarter to three, and I have not seen one single attempt to hand the olive branch, or grant any concession, to the Members moving Amendments.
There is a general desire on the part of the Government to use their might and power to force through this Bill in its entirety. Clause after Clause and line after line they stand by it. They say that we have got to accept it. They remind me of the play "Bunty Pulls the Strings" where the father comes down and demands of his daughter that she should study the Bible. She says: "Father, I don't understand it." He says "Who expects you to understand it." In that method the Government approaches their supporters. The Government say that this is the last word in wisdom, and they are prepared to use their power and might to force through this Bill. On this Amendment, and the previous Amendment, we approached the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and asked him to accept a modest request made by my colleagues and myself. There is a change in the personnel of the Treasury Bench, but there is no change in attitude or mind regarding the Bill. One might at a quarter to four have agreed to the whole of the Bill, and every Clause in it without a division, because Parliamentary time and manoeuvring is wasted on the people who occupy the Treasury Bench. At the same time, I support the Amendment as being reasonable in desiring to limit the period to one year, after which there would be a review of the whole circumstances. The grants should finish at the end of one year. That would have shown economy to the poorest section of the workers of the country and not how you should protect the banks and the bondholders.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish I had had the good fortune to be convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The proposal is that we should do the most generous act possible by making a free grant of the advances up to 1936, so that there shall be no further accumulation of the national debt of Newfoundland. We do not want to pile up debt at the very moment we are initiating proposals to decrease it. Hon. Members wish to reduce the period during which there shall be a free grant, thereby increasing the national debt of Newfoundland. That would be an indisputable fact. Our proposal is a free grant up to 1936. The hon. Member says he will only make a free grant up to 1934; thereafter it will be added to the debt.

Mr. MAXTON: I did not say so. The hon. Member said he would make a grant for one year and then consider whether it was necessary to make a further grant.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not trying to make a false point. We make our grant up to 1936. It certainly will be a free grant up to that period. The hon. Member says he will make it up to 1934. We have selected a period of three years because we think that is a reasonable time in which Newfoundland may recuperate. She has to rehabilitate herself and start a new system. We think that the period of three years should be allowed to her in which there should be no further addition to her burden. If the hon. Member is as honest with me, as he desires I should be with him, he will admit there is something in our action.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: My immediate reaction is that that quite unsatisfactory. The proposition is that Newfoundland is in a bad state because of maladministration. We secure that their credit shall not be destroyed in the markets of the world. That is the Government's case. Then they send out a Commission to reorganise their financial and economic affairs. It is the duty of that Commission to make the Budget balance. This question of the finance of a nation going wrong is not one which is limited to Newfoundland. There has been a fairly general experience of it. A nation either balances its Budget in the first year or it does not
do it at all. We send out a Commission, and they either balance their Budget in this forthcoming year, or they go further to the bad. You are not going to continue doing it indefinitely. We are not asking for a reference to Parliament or anything else. We are asking that in 1934 the Government shall review the extent to which the Commission has managed to put the affairs of Newfoundland in order. Having regard to the state of the finances of the country, after the Budget they shall review the position and consider whether further assistance to Newfoundland, in the subsequent years, shall be in the nature of a grant or a loan. Remember this, that this 1934 grant that we are allowing for in the Amendment is not the first one. We have been carrying this obligation now for 12 months. In two six-monthly periods we have given grants. The two loans this country passed are automatically under this Clause turned into grants, so that it is two years definite subsidising that we are doing here. All we are asking is that you do not give a three years' guarantee of grant, but a one year guarantee of grant and a promise to reconsider the situation at the end of one year, and, if the condition of Newfoundland is such that you require further grant, then let us make further grant. If the Commission is going to do anything in Newfoundland, it will do it in the first twelve months or it will never do it.
I see another difficulty. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not master of the situation. I presume that when his supporters withdrew to their "dug-outs"—or is "funk holes" the word?—he was left with a very general but definite instruction, and, if he got it from the Dominions Secretary, I can imagine the actual wording of it: "Not an inch! Not an inch!" And I can see that that is an almost insurmountable obstacle to a concession by the Financial Secretary, but I am quite sure that if he could meet his chief to-morrow morning and say, "I got through the night without any further trouble and without having to disturb your sleep and I only made one small concession, the Dominions Secretary would grasp him by the hand and quote scripture: 'Well done my good and faithful servant; you have been faithful in many small things, and you will now have many opportunities of doing more difficult jobs for me.'" I appeal to him
to face the responsibility and see the Dominions Secretary to-morrow morning.

3.5 a.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I would invite your guidance, Captain Bourne, I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out the word "either," in page 3, line 11, because we find it would be necessary to do that in order that the subse-

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-six' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 25.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
 [2.55 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Harbord, Arthur
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hartington, Marquess of
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Robinson, John Roland


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bernays, Robert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridgt)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Runge. Norah Cecil


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howard, Tom Forrest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Borodale, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Scone, Lord


Broadbent, Colonel John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ker, J. Campbell
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Storey, Samuel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leckle, J. A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Strauss, Edward A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Christie, James Archibald
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Summersby, Charles H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thompson, Luke


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKeag, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dickie, John P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wickon-T.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tree, Ronald


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Weymouth, Viscount


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morris, John Patrick (Sallord, N.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantie, Sir Francis
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Womersley. Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William



Goldle, Noel B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Graves, Marjorie
Perkins, Walter R. D.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Petherick, M





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Nathan. Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cocke, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mt. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

quent Amendment on the Paper may read. I would like you to inform me whether I should proceed to debate the manuscript Amendment or the two Amendments together.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment is to leave out the
word "either," and it is quite obvious that unless that word is left out, the second Amendment would not make sense. Therefore, the two Amendments are really one.

Mr. COCKS: Do you think that at a quarter-past three a manuscript Amendment should be handed in? No one has even seen it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question whether or not a manuscript Amendment is accepted is entirely within my discretion. On this occasion it appears to me designed to enable the wish of the hon. Gentleman to be put more clearly before the Committee.

Mr. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "either".
Under the Clause we find that advances may be made by the Dominions Secretary with the consent of the Treasury to meet certain contingencies for Newfoundland, those being the expenditure of the administration of Newfoundland, and they may be added to the charges for the service of the debt. We propose in this Amendment that after 1936, the period for which grants may be made, grants should no longer be considered, and whatever assistance may have to be given to Newfoundland should be made by way of loans. I am quite conscious of the inconsistency of my speech to-night with the speech I made two days ago, and so it requires some explanation from me, having regard to the fact that I advocated default or a termination of this liability on the part of Newfoundland. But there is a limit to which the taxpayers of this country should be called upon to make good this liability, and, having already accepted the liability to make advances by the rejection of the last Amendment to meet expenditure, including the service of the debt, we think that this is just as far as the taxpayers of this country should be called upon to go.
I will now give figures which are of some interest to the Committee. The capital debt of Newfoundland stands at over £20,000,000, and we find that the interested just over 5 per cent. of that figure. But the interest has not been paid. In recent years it has been found quite impossible for the community of Newfoundland to meet these interest charges, and part of the outstanding capital is the capitalised deficit on arrears of interest
payments. If Newfoundland has found it impossible in recent years to pay the expenditure on her social services and carry the heavy debt charges, then it is quite open to believe that she will find that difficulty maintained for some period. The Government are contemplating making arrangements to relieve her of them until 1936, and there is a possibility that even after that they may go on doing so. Unless this Amendment be accepted, this country may be called upon to continue to pay interest on the whole of the capital debt of Newfoundland, should that administration find itself unable to pay any part of the service of the debt.
We on this side of the Committee think that that is asking too much of the British taxpayer. After all, this payment is to be made to the bondholders, and it is not to be made to the people of Newfoundland. We should rather relieve the people of Newfoundland from the liability of paying bondholders this sum of money. There is no reason at all why we should put the people who hold bonds in this exceptional position, that they have to be guaranteed against loss whatever happens, and that if Newfoundland fails to prosper then the people of this country must carry the burden. If Newfoundland is only to share a measure of prosperity and the surpluses accumulated in that country will be required for the services of this debt for years to come, there is no one who could say that for Newfoundland there is hope to do anything more than to pay her way, and to find this additional sum required for the service of the debt. It is really the wrong way of dealing with the Island by making arrangements to keep its burdens and maintain the bondholders in their secured position. I think that the bondholders should be made to realise that there is no perfect guarantee even for them.
If the grants are open to be made after 1936, any subsequent assistance required will have to be met by way of loans. Then the bondholders will find that the value of their bonds will be reduced in a corresponding degree to the additional loans that may be required for the benefit of the community. If this £26,000,000 remains in Newfoundland until 1936 or 1937, and Newfoundland is then unable to maintain her annual balance, it will be necessary to give an advance by way of loan, and then the security of the present bondholders will be reduced to the extent of
these loans. I do not think that is unfair at all. Those of us who know the history of these bonds know well enough that the present bondholders may not be the same people that held the bonds 12 months or two years ago. It is well known that during this year, since the Government's intention was made known, these bonds have increased in value by something between £3,000,000 and £5,000,000. This gift has been made to certain people who hold the bonds, and the marketable value is higher to that extent. That is an indisputable fact which should be taken into consideration.
It is not the concern of this House to maintain the high value of those bonds. The only way to reduce the value and to bring the bonds to a reasonable comparison with the value of 12 months ago—and so reduce the advantages gained by the bondholders by reason of their previous knowledge of the Government's intentions—is to increase the amount of liability on the Newfoundland people. When I say that, I know I am inconsistent bearing in mind that what I said before, and it may be thought to show some lack of sympathy with Newfoundland. I am perfectly conscious that the burden of the Newfoundland people is already too high, and I believe that there should be a willingness, or some disposition, to compromise on the part of the bondholders, who should be brought to a willingness to negotiate. That measure of compromise or reduction of their claims would follow the need of the Newfoundland community for additional borrowings and the spreading of the liability over larger ground. Hon. Gentlemen know quite well that this burden and the spending liability of the Newfoundland people is a thing which will prevent eventually all their plans for reorganising the industrial and economic life of the country. Whatever may be gained by improved efficiency in production or distribution in Newfoundland will be impeded as long as this large burden remains and the high level which will be required to meet the interest charges. There will be no margin for improving the standard of life of the Newfoundland people.
While we are not prepared to ask the people of this country to shoulder the burden, we are certainly not prepared to give to the bondholders a guarantee that they can get, through
the Dominions Secretary with the approval of the Treasury, unlimited advances by way of free grants to guarantee the interest they demand. A good deal has been said about the potential wealth of Newfoundland, and that there is a vast measure of wealth in her fisheries. The most valuable cod fisheries in the world are there. Let me warn the hon. Gentleman that if the Government persist in championing the claims of the bondholres, and refuse to attend to the representations made by us on behalf of the people of Newfound and. they will find retribution following them. A political Nemesis will overtake them some day, and their personal stock, as well as the Government's stock, will fall lower than the stock of Newfoundand.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible to have the Dominions Secretary here? We are having no explanations at all, and certainly the Minister responsible ought to be here in order that we may know exactly what we are doing. Otherwise we shall be obliged to move to report Progress.

3.17 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman deplores the absence of the Dominions Secretary. This is purely a financial matter which is within the ambit of the Treasury, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members. I can assure the hon. Member I will do my best to answer any financial points which arise on this financial Clause. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who is always candid, said frankly that his attitude on this Bill was inconsistent. I do not in the least reproach him for that. I will confine myself to dealing with the merits of his actual proposal. He has proposed that everything paid by way of advance to 1936 should be by way of free grant. The Committee decided that point in the last Division. We are now confronted with what is to happen after 1936. As no one in this Committee can foresee what actually the situation of Newfoundland will be after 1936, we say that any advances made after that date shall be either by way of grant or loan, as the conditions of the time may require. It will be for Parliament at that time, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, to decide whether it is more appropriate to continue these advances as grants, or to make them as loans.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to indicate the part of this Bill which says that Parliament can determine it? I understood it was the Treasury.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: One assumes that a Vote has to be presented to this House before any money can be spent, and Parliament will therefore determine it. It is not necessary to put in the Bill that Parliament will determine it, but that will be, of course, the situation in 1926. It is precisely because I do not know what the situation will be that I am resisting the Amendment. I am sure the House of Commons of that day will review all the factors of the situation, and make up its mind what the best course will be.

3.20 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: There is a question which arises on which I would ask the Government to give information. This Sub-section, which deals with the advances after 1936, covers advances in Clause 2 (1). We are dealing with the advances to the service of the national debt. The other type is the advances for defraying the expenses of the public services. I am not at all certain as to the position with regard to services of a capital nature. The hon. Gentleman will realise that in the past a good deal of capital expenditure has come in the Budgets of Newfoundland. In looking through Budget speeches, one finds items of a capital nature coming in. Will the advances which are made under this Clause, which will be advances substantially to balance the Budget, be of a nature to cover capital items, or will they be only advances for the purpose of defraying current expenditure? In the suggestions of the Royal Commission there are a very great number for which capita] is required. They include such things as an efficient local marine, fishing, agriculture and all sorts of things. In paragraph 503, where they deal with assistance by foreign capital, they recommend this type of expenditure. There is the proposal which I may describe as one to sell Newfoundland to an American corporation—a corporation to take over and develop Newfoundland. It is unthinkable that in these days any Government with a sense of responsibility could grant a series of monopolies on essential articles and place the wellbeing of its people in
the control of a private company, even if such a company should contribute from its own resources the capital necessary for the propects in view.
Have the Government considered the question of what sort of advances and what amount of advances are likely to be required? The hon. Gentleman's Department must have estimated the likely amount of capital expenditure which would have to be made by the Government for the development of all these various services which we find dealt with in the course of the Report, both before and after 1934. There must, of course, be some planned programme with regard to the finances of Newfoundland. We are anxious to know whether these sums will be in part or in whole expended upon the development of Newfoundland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite entitled to ask the Government whether they propose to make such advances by grant or loan, but I do not think that on this Amendment he can go into details.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The question whether they should be a grant or loan depends largely on the reason for which funds are given. We have been told over and over again that remunerative expenditure is very wise, that is, expenditure which is going to bring back some return by the development of some natural resource. It might well be, if some large part of this expenditure were going to be for that purpose, that we might feel inclined, in view of the explanation, to give way on this Amendment. If these were the circumstances, we might not exclude the possibility of guaranteeing them. If we understand that these moneys are merely to be advanced for paying interest on bonds, then we do very strongly object to their being made a grant. If it is a question between the bondholders and the taxpayers of this country, we are all in favour of the taxpayers. If it is a question of remunerative development of Newfoundland and the taxpayer here, it might be a different story.
We are anxious that we should get an explanation from the Government as to the type of advance they have in mind, and whether they contemplate that the major proportion, or the whole, shall be advances for the payment of interest or current expenses, or whether they con-
template there shall come into these advances considerable sums with regard to development for the different interests and agriculture in Newfoundland. Until we get that explanation, and until we are satisfied that this money will not be used

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

for the bondholders, we shall feel obliged to insist upon this, after 1936, being made by loan, and not by grant.

Question put, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 25.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
 [3.29 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, James S. C. (Stirring)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Holdeworth, Herbert
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bernays, Robert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Robinson, John Roland


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Borodale, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rickards, George William


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Broadbent, Colonel John
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Scone, Lord


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Storey, Samuel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leckie, J. A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Strauss, Edward A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Christie, James Archibald
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Colman, N. C. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thompson, Luke


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKeag, William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dickie, John P.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Eastwood, John Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Weymouth, Viscount


Essenhigh. Reginald Clare
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Womersley, Walter James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goldie, Noel B.
Nunn, William
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Graves, Marjorie
Palmer, Francis Noel





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John



Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: Before the Committee agrees to the Clause we ought to have
some move information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or from the Dominions Secretary, if he can be induced to come back to the House. There are one or two points about which we want further information. This Clause is an important Clause, dealing with the expenditure of public money provided by the taxpayers of this country in the interests of the people in our oldest Dominion. The purpose of the Clause is to enable our taxpayers, when certain forms have been gone through, to defray the expenses of the public service and the service of the public debt in Newfoundland. What public services are to have their expenses defrayed, and in what manner? Our experience in regard to the defraying of public expenses does not warrant us in having confidence in the way in which those expenses have been paid in the past, and I think we are entitled to have same real assurance in regard to the methods and the limits of expenditure in the future.
I am not quite sure as to just what those public expenses cover. Are we to make ourselves responsible for the whole of the Civil Service expenses in Newfoundland in the future, and are we to make ourselves responsible for the additional staff that will not doubt be entailed by the new Commission taking over control, and by the new Governor who will act as chairman of the Commission? Is no limit to be placed on the numbers of the staff employed, or on the salaries to be paid to that staff? If there are to be such limits, what are they? After all, we are committing ourselves here to an expenditure that is not defined, and I think we are entitled to be able to give assurances to our people that there is some limit to the expenditure to which we may be committing them. Expenditure in our own experience in this country when Commissioners were sent in has been very heavy in many instances. Very high salaries have been paid, particularly when they have been sent down to supersede public assistance committees. It appears to me to be becoming a habit of the present Government to pay out so much more—

The CHAIRMAN: I must draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that I do not think that what the
hon. Gentleman is saying refers to Clause 2.

Mr. ATTLEE: On that point, are not these advances for the development of the public services? My hon. Friend is putting forward the argument that we should know what the amount should be. We cannot know that unless we know the kind and size of the public service.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in the earlier part of his speech was in order.

Mr. McENTEE: I was merely giving an illustration of the experience we have had over here, but if you rule that it is not in order, I accept your Ruling without any further question. It does not in any way alter the fact that certain public services are to be made, and we have heard nothing as to what the expenses are likely to be. We know to a little the expenses of the Governor and the Commissioners, but we have no information as to what the cost of the staff is going to be. We have not heard whether the old civil servants, who, in some way, were responsible for the corruption of the past, are to be continued to be employed, or whether their numbers are to be decreased, and also we have no information as to the number of new appointments to be made. I venture to hope that the Financial Secretary will give us more information before he asks us to pass this Clause.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The grants under this Clause are, I understand, for the purpose of making good any deficiency that cannot be met by the local population. These grants are made out of public money raised in this country. They are grants and not loans, and there are no conditions attached to the grants. Public money granted to people ought to be scrutinised in the same way as Poor Law relief. In every case this money will be paid to assist people, and there ought to be a specially careful scrutiny by the Treasury, so as to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers in this country. This money was being handed over without any explanation as to what people will receive it, and I wish that the first charge on this money should be the deserving population of Newfoundland, who are finding things most difficult now. I say that deserving people should be the first
charge on the service. We say that it was the Treasury's duty to safeguard this money, and to propound proposals to safeguard it. We must vote against this Clause because we think it is handing out public money, and that in view of the history of Newfoundland, its mal-administration and its record, we may find this money falling back into the same corrupt hands. We make a strong indictment of the Government for not having safeguarded the use of public money and taken precautions to see that it was spent in the best interests of the taxpayers here and of the poor people of Newfoundland.

3.47 a.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I hope that the Committee will pardon me for intruding in this discussion at this late hour [Hon. Members: "No—early hour"], when it is desirable that business should be facilitated, subject, of course, to proper scrutiny of legislation of this importance. I appreciate that it is riot usual for a new Member of the House to be heard at this hour in a discussion on such revolutionary changes as are proposed in this Bill. The point which caused me to rise was that I noticed on page 253 of the Report—and it is a point which is very much concerned with the Clause under discussion—the second largest item in these loans is for deficits on current account, including railways. I think it is very important that some investigation should be made and some definite understanding come to in regard to these debts.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is a new Member, and perhaps I may remind him that there is a Standing Order against the repetition of arguments which have been used in a previous Debate in this Session on a different matter.

Mr. WILMOT: I bow to your ruling, Sir. My difficulty, of course, is that of a new Member faced with a somewhat complicated procedure. I hope you will bear with me. The point I was trying to make is that these deficits include deficits which were incurred on the running of the railways in Newfoundland. When I went through the Schedules to see the nature of these railway debts, I was reminded of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we were dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. He had some very severe things to
say about deficits on current account and about Governments, past and present, who carried them on. He went on to point to the deficits of the Unemployment Fund—and I am stating this by way of comparison with the procedure laid down in Clause 2—and said that when deficits of this kind were incurred on current account for specific purposes, as these evidently are, they should be borne by that section of the community for whose benefit they have been incurred. Following on that line of reasoning he claimed that he was justified in charging the unemployed persons in this country with the deficit which had been incurred during the years 1921 to 1931. It was said from these benches that in our view, having regard to the fact that it was a national crisis in which the country had been involved, in the same way, possibly, as the crisis which has given rise to this legislation—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now offending against another Standing Order in regard to references in the same Session of Parliament to a Debate on a different matter

Mr. ATTLEE: With great respect, I submit that in this House that rule has never been pressed so far that when one is discussing a matter of debts or finance, one is ruled out from referring to any parallel matter of finance. I submit that if one were to rule it strictly, all references to past policy would be out of Order. I understand that the ruling is not intended to suggest that one is not allowed to draw a parallel of the inconsistency of the Government—that it is generous in one respect in its finance and penurious in another. I submit that that was never intended to stifle debate in this House.

The CHAIRMAN: That is right and I allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude in that respect, but ultimately I thought it necessary to call his attention to the Standing Order.

Mr. WILMOT: Am I entitled to refer to the course of policy in this House in the same Session?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, the hon. Member is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to refer to another Debate in the same Session of Parliament on another matter. If there is only a refer-
ence to the policy can that be done. The hon. Member was referring specifically to a certain Debate in this House on another matter.

Mr. ATTLEE: On that, Sir Dennis, I should like you to define the word "matter." You have two matters here: one is the matter of Newfoundland, and the other certain deficits in Newfoundland.

The CHAIRMAN: There is a distinct difference here between the matter of this Bill or any part of the Bill, and the matter of another Debate dealing with unemployment deficits in this House.

Mr. ATTLEE: The point is: Is the question of the method of meeting the deficit the "matter," because, if so, I suggest with great respect that you can compare the methods of meeting deficits in respect of particular funds. I quite agree that there is a difference between a deficit on the Unemployment Fund and a deficit in the case of a State like Newfoundland, but I submit that within the meaning of this Order the same matter must be the same general category of subject as the matter under discussion, and that there has been in this House very frequently in the last 10 years a habit of referring and comparing—when you take the matter in that form. I submit, with great respect, that certainly I have never heard in 10 years this rule given such a wide extent as it has been in this Session in ruling out allusions to previous debates.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not refer to the matter in the sense which the hon. Gentleman has. I referred to a Debate upon a different matter. I did not think the hon. Member's argument was in order.

Mr. WILMOT: I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to a difficulty which is going to arise for the Government by reason of the very marked inconsistency of their policy—between the policy shown on another occasion recently and the policy with regard to the Clause now under discussion. The Government's policy on a recent occasion was that the deficit incurred for a specific purpose should be liquidated by being made a charge upon that section of the community for whose benefit the deficit had been incurred. In this case, the deficit was incurred on current account,
and a very large part of the deficit has been incurred by reason of the mal-administration of the railways. One has only to turn to the Report, page 67, to see that this railway was run at a loss, and was in fact in a state of bankruptcy when the Government purchased it. They paid a sum of no less than 2,000,000 dollars, and, after having paid exorbitant sums for a bankrupt enterprise, the railway was run by the Government every year at a loss. These deficits were not met by adjusting the railway tariffs, or even by taxation on the community, or a section of the community. We are to be made to pay that loss, and it is proposed under this Clause to deal with this loss by advances, notwithstanding that a large part of this deficit was incurred for the benefit of the railway stockholders. I ask if the hon. Gentleman in his reply would give some indication of whether it is proposed, as a condition of taking over the funding of this deficit, to insist that some provision is made for recouping the public exchequer from those for whose benefit this provision is being made?

4.2 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to raise a point with regard to the expenditure on the public services. We have been given to understand in the Report that some 76 per cent. of the people of Newfoundland are unfortunately having to be supported out of public funds. We have heard that provision is to be made for the administration of Newfoundland, including the defraying of the expenses of the public services and the service of the public debt. It has already come out in discussions that the moneys to be provided by this country come from the people of this country, and we are here setting up a precedent. What might happen in the case of a country like New Zealand which has a high standard of life? If hon. Members will follow out this principle, we may come to such a pass that we may actually be reducing the standard of life in this country in order to maintain a higher standard of life in another country in the Empire. Our Treasury and the Secretary of State are to have authority in this matter, and whether they will have power to lay down an Empire standard, and whether it is to be laid down on a Newfoundland, on a British, or a New Zealand
basis, does really open up a matter of profound Imperial policy. I think the Government have stumbled into this Bill, without considering the extraordinary repercussions, by taking responsibility for Newfoundland. One has seen one Clause rather in the light of a breaking up of the Empire. In the other we may be entering into a new integration of the Empire on the basis of a definite Empire standard.
There is another point on which we want to get an answer from the Financial Secretary. Unless we know something of the standard of administration of Newfoundland, we cannot understand what liability we are to get under this Clause, and what advances the Secretary of State is going to make. In this case we give the power up to 1936 and thereafter we may go on not only by way of grants, but also by loans. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary how he envisages this matter from the point of view of Newfoundland? If he continues with loan after loan, we are never going to get Newfoundland out of her indebtedness. If you are going on with the principle of grants, she may soon be in a position to regain her status as a fully-fledged member of the Commonwealth of Nations. She may get back her Dominion status. It is vital that we should know the policy of the Government in this respect. I do not think it is clear in Clause 2 whether this country should keep Newfoundland in, so to speak, a condition of debt, and continue to administer her affairs for a whole series of years—in which case all the talk about the honour of Newfoundland and getting her out of debt does not apply. It only means we put her into debt to us instead of the previous creditors. If the policy of Clause 3 is to be applied, we want to know how soon Newfoundland will be put back in a self-supporting condition, and what is likely to be the cost to this country.
I submit that the kind of power we are giving here is something far bigger than the Dominions Secretary has had. He has certainly been little more than a letter-box. Now we are giving him a far greater say in the future, not only of Newfoundland, but in the composition of the British Empire itself. We do not know how long he will be in his office or
how long he will hold any particular views. Nor do we know the political outlook of the Government. We are going back, it may be, to the time when the mother country was surrounded by a number of dependencies which will be held to her by subsidies and loans, or perhaps we are going to be very generous and pay the debts of those other parts of the Empire, and so lay the foundations of the whole new British Commonwealth of Nations. We have not had any real explanation of policy.

4.11 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I have only one point to make on this Clause. Besides being a Member of Parliament, I am a taxpayer of this country. As a taxpayer, I resent very much being called on to provide out of my not very lavish resources sums of money to make good the dividends of people who may be 10 or 100 times better off than I am. But I would not grumble more than I have already done at that aspect of it if I were satisfied that the money I am sending out to Newfoundland through the agency of the Dominions Secretary were spent in improving the status of men who are infinitely poorer than I am. Now the powers of the Secretary of State are added to, in order to decide what the social services of the island shall be. The Governor is the direct appointment of the Dominions Secretary, and, therefore, this country, through the Dominions Secretary, the Governor, and Commission, can decide what part of the Newfoundland budget is to be devoted to social services. I think we have a right to some assurance, because the whole plea for this Bill was sentimental. I am entitled to ask, before this Clause is passed, for some undertaking that, when the Commission goes out, there shall be an instruction given to see that the sentiments which waved this House in passing this Measure, be given effective expression to in the actual internal affairs of Newfoundland. I read in the Report that, in the relief of the able-bodied unemployed,
Payments are made in kind, and mostly take the form of rations of tea, flour, pork and molasses. Generally speaking, it represents a maximum of 1.80 dollars a month.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury tells us that it is only payable after an affidavit that the people are destitute.
I want from him a statement on behalf of the Government that, although it is not specifically included in this Clause, there will be some instruction to the Commissioners, on behalf of the Government, that these standards shall be raised from that miserable level to some level that we here can defend. The Commission themselves say, "We are satisfied that if the grant is to be made at all, it cannot be made on a lower basis." I ask that the Government shall regard it as a first duty on the part of the Commission to put the social services of the island, particularly those dealing with the able-bodied unemployed, in a position that is at least comparable with what is done for the masses of unfortunate people in our own land. That is a very small assurance to ask. I know I canot get it included in Clause 2, but at least some statement from the Treasury Box would I am sure have some influence on the future administration of the island.

4.19 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question arising out of a little difficulty we had in the Committee as to whether certain matters came within the first Amendment moved? Obviously, many Members were in great doubt as to the meaning of this Clause. I have asked the Financial Secretary whether he will take an opportunity in another place to see that this Clause is at least so drafted that such eminent persons as the Chairman can clearly understand it, because your predecessor in the Chair said that he was in grave doubt as to what its meaning was. The second point is this: When this question of paying the expenses of the service of the public debt arises, I would like to ask whether the Government are prepared to institute an inquiry into those public debts in order to see whether all of them are of equal merit and equally deserve to have the service paid on them?
There are suggestions that there has been a certain amount of wangling—to use a colloqualism—as regards some of the financing in Newfoundland. I think it would be of great advantage to the future of Newfoundland, and it also might be of assistance in finding out exactly who were the guilty parties if an inquiry into its public debts could be
held in order to ascertain the circumstances in which they were raised, and the purposes to which they have been put, and whether, in fact, everything spent was as proper as one would wish it to be. I should like to know whether the Commission, as soon as it gets over there, will institute an inquiry into the whole question of public indebtedness with a view to seeing whether something can be saved. There is another aspect to which I would ask him to make an inquiry, and that is to have an inquiry to find some basis for distinguishing between one part of the debt and another. In the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act in Section 2 (c), the Governor in Council has power to issue stock for the purpose of raising sufficient money to discharge all the obligations of Newfoundland selected by the Governor in Council for this purpose with the concurrence of the Treasury. Obviously the Governor is in a position to select certain of the obligations of Newfoundland for discharge, and therefore he is in a position to say as regards to some obligations, "We will not discharge them, and, as regards others, we will discharge them."
There is also a provision by which the Treasury can advance money under Clause 4. Will the hon. Gentleman consider an inquiry into the needs of the holders of these securities so that a selection may be made on the basis of need? If one went through the list of the bondholders, and could find everybody with an income under £100 a year, then they should be selected first, and, thereafter, if there were more money available, persons with an income of £200 a year could be selected. It seems to me that that might be a useful way to enable the Governor in Council to discharge this liability of selection which he has in paragraph (c), and it would also have the effect of making a sound and proper basis when the money was being distributed in this way. I shall be glad to know from the hon. Gentleman if it is; part of the policy of the Government to institute these two inquiries, first of all into the circumstances of the raising of these loans, and, secondly, as to the needs of the bondholders in order that the principle which the Government have imposed in relation to the Poor Law may be applied to the bondholders in this case.

4.25 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause merely deals with the situation in any financial year in Newfoundland when it is more than probable that the revenues of that year will, after provision has been made for such working balance as the Treasury may consider adequate, fall short of the amount required to meet any liabilities incurred. That is the situation with which this Clause deals, and, should such a position arise, power is taken to make advances for defraying the expenditure of the public services and the service of the debt from money provided by Parliament. I cannot forecast what particular item will be in any Budget, and I cannot tell if capital sums will be included, or whether ordinary items of expenditure should be included, but I do know that part of the trouble in Newfoundland is caused by the fact that capital expenditure has been included when only normal expenditure should have been incurred. In future it is going to be put under proper administration, and proper scrutiny will be observed in all transactions.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has very nearly answered the question I put to him some time ago. Is it going to be the policy of the Government not to pay any of these capital sums out of current revenue?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, in this sense the Budget in Newfoundland

will now be put under proper supervision. The British Treasury principles will prevail, and I think that will be a sufficient safeguard. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was particularly anxious on this point. I can assure him that there is to be a Comptroller and Auditor-General in Newfoundland, and, in addition, the whole of the accounts will be reviewed in the Dominions Office, and again in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether there would be a means inquiry into the resources of the individual bondholders. He knows that even if such an innovation were desirable, it would be impracticable. [Interruption.] We are dealing not only with our own nationals, but with investors in the British Empire, and in many parts of the world, and we would not for a moment contemplate such a thing.

Mr. COCKS: I have been looking through the Report, and, if the hon. Gentleman will look at page 131, I would like to ask him what is meant by the suggestion to purchase 12 schooners of the banking type. I should like an assurance from the hon. Member as to exactly what that proposal means.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 26.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
 [4.32 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howittt. Dr. Alfred B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dickie. John P.
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Eastwood, John Francis
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ker, J. Campbell


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elmley, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bernays, Robert
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leckie, J. A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Borodale, Viscount.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Golf, Sir Park
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjorie
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Burghley, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKeag, William


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hartington, Marquess of
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Christie, James Archibald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Colman, N. C. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cooke, Douglas
Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thompson, Luke


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rickards, George William
Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Nunn, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Scone, Lord
Tree, Ronald


Palmer, Francis Noel
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Petherick. M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Pickering, Ernest H.
Storey, Samuel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D,


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, John Roland
Tata, Mavis Constance
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry

4.40 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do. report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
I make this Motion in order to ask the Government what their intentions are in regard to the proceedings this morning. It is now 20 to 5, and we have made very fair progress. I hope by now the Government realise that such important measures as the Newfoundland Bill and the Unemployment Resolution ought not to be put down on the same night. It is asking the House too much. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Well, we are quite fresh and ready to go on, whereas there are signs of obvious sleepiness on the Government benches. We have seen one Minister retire for refreshment, and we do not want to overstrain another Minister. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that if he gets this Newfoundland Bill in the course of time, we might easily take the other business on Monday or Tuesday. [HON. MEMBEBS: "No !"]

4.41 a.m.

Captain MARGESSON: I can agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is twenty minutes to five. I do not agree with the second part of his statement—that we have made good progress. My view is that progress has been very slow. It would not be right that those Members of the House
who have sat so faithfully should not go through with their allotted task so that the programmes announced at Question Time should be carried out. He told me some four hours and ten minutes ago that the Bill could be completed in two hours—that was before something had happened to change his mind. I think that, with a little perseverance, all of us working together in the same spirit of cc-operation, we should be able to succeed in accomplishing the task.

4.42 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: One good thing has been achieved by the late sitting to-night. It has raised the Patronage Secretary to heights of eloquence with which none of us had associated him in this House or had ever seen him attain before. I shall look forward with pleasure to his speech when he moves to report Progress about a quarter to eleven. But the general of an Army, however willing his troops, should not put an undue strain on them, no matter how loyal and enthusiastic they may be. There are some Members I have watched—among them the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) with some alarm. I did not know at what moment any one of us might have to rush across to his assistance. I would like to suggest this to the Patronage Secretary—that the by-elections have not been going well in
the country for the Government, and I think it would be inadvisable to pursue recklessly a course of attack which might lead to a considerable number of by-elections. I want to remind him that while courage is a great virtue it is important that the leader should always temper his courage with prudence. I would suggest to him that, although he has the power and the courage together with loyalty among his supporters which would enable him to go on, such an action of courage should be moderated by prudence. All of us might fall into the error of sheer confounded pig-headedness and true courage. We have a long Session in front of us. We have any amount of time after Christmas. We go into the New Year during the recess, and we all hope that year will be a brighter and better than this one. I suggest that we should leave the programme until after the recess during which we would all have made new resolutions and thus be able to come back fresh and invigorated to start the New Year's task in a new spirit. For these reasons, I ask the Patronage Secretary out of pure friendship and in response to his appeal for co-operation that he should accept the proposal of the Opposition and report Progress.

4.47 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I have sat here the whole of the morning. My colleagues of the Opposition want toleration from the other side, and if they do not get it they prefer to work and fight as long as possible. We are acting more like school children than grown-up men. That is the position all round. Both sides have their backs up and neither side will climb down. I do not think anyone wants to sit until eleven o'clock. We are being driven into this sort of thing by retaliation. If he could get an assurance that we will get the Financial Resolution through very quickly Monday or Tuesday, I think some understanding could be reached. I think that common sense should prevail. I do not want to stop. It is a kind of false courage. If it comes to hard work, we are the men to do it. If I may, I would like to appeal for the ladies, too. I know the ladies say that they do not want it, but they look like washed-out rags. There is nothing gives me more bad feeling in an all-night sitting than seeing
women here. They cannot stand the arduous task of an all-night sitting. Whatever qualities women may have—

An HON. MEMBER: They are not all-nighters.

Mr. TINKER: I am making an appeal. I am tired, but if it has to be a long drawn-out night I will stick it as well as anyone.

4.51 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I think that if any appeal would move anybody it is an appeal like that of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and the even more moving appeal of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Tinker). Those appeals ought to have some impression on the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury appealed for cooperation, but I do not think he went the right way to get it. Apparently he wanted to give his drooping followers a stimulant, but it is only a stimulant, and one cannot live on stimulant very long.
I am one of the people who have had to work all day and all night on many occasions, at much harder work than this, but it does appeal to me to ask whether this is sensible. We are in the position that we are in now because the Government endeavoured to impose on the House an impossible task to which the Opposition could not agree. We were compelled to sit on by the action of the Government through the Prime Minister earlier in the day and the Dominions Secretary later in the evening. Had it not been for that we would undoubtedly have made greater progress.
The only effect of the decision of the Government is that we shall be here till 11 o'clock. A Bill in which many Members are interested and which is practically non-controversial and might have been placed on the Statute book will be held up. The Government will probably have laid up feelings in the minds of some of us on this side of the House that will encourage similar proceedings on other occasions. Since this Parliament was first elected the Government have not been subjected to anything in the nature of obstruction, but if they are subjected to it in future it will be entirely their own fault. I am making an appeal to sensible instincts in the Government. The Government seem to imagine that
because they have a big following they can ride rough-shod over those whose following is very small. Practically all the Members on the Government side of the House have been sleeping.

Sir GEORGE PENNY (Comptroller of the Household): Some of your Members have been sleeping all the time.

Mr. McENTEE: They have at least had the decency to go out of the House. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider his decision, and to consider that it does not apply only to to-night. I believe in good sense, and 99 per cent. of the Members of the House would agree with me in an appeal to good sense. (Interruption.) Hon. Members opposite are shouting against their courage. I have discussed the matter with at least a dozen of them and everyone of them has said that it is ridiculous to carry on as we are doing. Let there be more consideration for the feelings of the Members of this House. We should not be asked to do impossible things.

6 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I just add one word? We all know that the Parliamentary Secretary, aided by the Government majority, can do what he likes. We also know why we are sitting late to-night. I did, of course, say that the proceedings would be a little late in order to mark our views of the programme of the Government. There was at an early stage a certain incident which made everybody rather irritated, and as a result we determined to mark our disapproval. The only question to be decided by the House is whether we are going to continue this for another two or three hours, or whether, having made the best of the business, we are to discuss the Financial Resolution in a reasonable spirit. I have been asked to cooperate with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am making a suggestion as regards cooperation. I think it is perfectly possible to arrange for this Financial Resolution to be disposed of on Monday or Tuesday. I think that if that course were adopted all would feel better, if they could get at least an hour or two's sleep. Some of us have to start work at 9 o'clock in the morning. If that cannot be arranged, if both sides are not prepared to give way, may I suggest that the side which has 550 Members would find it easier to
give way than the side with 50? Then we might all get away from here soon.

Captain MARGESSON: I regret very much, after the appeal which has been made to me and the lecture given to me by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee), and also the appeal made to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, that I cannot accept the proposal. I must point out that the incident to which he referred was amply apologised for almost as soon as it happened, and the House accepted the apology and the hon. Gentleman concerned also accepted it. Therefore, to make that an excuse for five hours of organised obstruction—

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is is not out of Order to say that anyone is obstructing?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Captain MARGESSON: I withdraw it.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraw the remark?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think he has already withdrawn it.

Captain MARGESSON: To have such a. long sitting seems to be hardly justified by the events that took place just after eleven o'clock, and despite the appeal made to me we must go on.

5.5 a.m.

Mr. COCKS: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says and I agree with the appeal for co-operation that has been made in discussing this question. I wish an appeal for co-operation had been made to the Members of the Cabinet. Where is the Home Secretary? Where is the Foreign Secretary? Where is the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and where is the Secretary of State for the Dominions? The only Cabinet Minister I see is the First Lord of the Admiralty, and we know that the Navy is always on duty. Apart from him, where is the Prime Minister or even the Lord President of the Council? I am willing to cooperate with the Patronage Secretary, and I am willing to give to this Measure the deepest and most sympathetic consideration. Every word shall be carefully weighed before it passes my scrutiny, and every phrase and paragraph will have
to be carefully discussed before it passes this House. I will co-operate with him to make it so good a Measure, even if we have to go on to the time where there is a legal end of our sitting.

CLAUSE 3.—(Guarantee of certain securities of Newfoundland.)

5.18 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "guarantee" to insert:

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes 26; Noes 139.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
 [5.9 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan. George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocke, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Crippe, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry





NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Raikes. Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Renwick. Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, John Roland


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bernays, Robert
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Borodale, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rickarde, George William


Bossom, A. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Scone, Lord


Broadbent, Colonel John
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Burghley, Lord
Leckie, J. A.
Spencer. Captain Richard A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Storey. Samuel


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Llewellin, Major John J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stuart. Lord C. Crichton-


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Christie, James Archibald
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Colman, N. C. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
McKeag, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thompson. Luke


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thorp. Linton Theodore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Dickie, John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd. Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Eastwood, John Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholeon, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wills, Wilfrid, D.


Fremantie, Sir Francis
Nunn, William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Goff, Sir Park
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goldie, Noel B.
Penny, Sir George
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris Jones.


Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.



Graves, Marjorie
Pethorick, M.

"provided that the consent of the House of Commons has first been given for such guarantee."

The purpose of this Amendment is very obvious, and I do not think I need take up very much time in explaining it. The Clause, if amended as suggested, would read:
The Treasury may, for the purposes of any issue of stock by the Government of Newfoundland under the provisions of section two of the Loan Act, guarantee, provided that the consent of the House of Commons has first been given for such guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as they think fit, the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, the said stock, and the payments to be made to the sinking fund to be established under the Loan Act.

I take it that the Financial Secretary is taking the necessary steps to enable him to accept this Amendment. If he is accepting it I will sit down at once and save the time of the Committee. His sphinx-like smile leads me to believe that his answer on this occasion is not going to be different from the answers he has given on previous Amendments. It is getting near his last opportunity of establishing his reputation as a Minister who is big enough to make concessions. If he does not do so now, there will be only one or two opportunities left. I am sure the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself are grievously disappointed because on many occasions in the days before prosperity had presumably gone to the Financial Secretary's head, we on these benches were his allies. He knows how difficult it is for me to stand here as his opponent after many fights as allies. If there is any reasonable chord left in his heart and if all the milk of human kindness has not been sapped out of his soul by those with whom he is now associated now is his chance.

I would point to one very great and important element in this particular Amendment that may influence him in coming to a decision; he can grant this without any expenditure of money; it will not cause him a half-penny to make this concession. Considering that the Bill recklessly throws away a very handsome sum and that he has here an Amendment which is not going to add anything to that sum, it should receive reasonable consideration from the Government. This is a serious point. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, we recognise that that would necessitate a Report Stage, which we could use for a more adequate discussion of the provisions of the Bill than has yet obtained. But we would forgo our rights of discussion on that Report Stage and allow the Bill to go through without further discussion until we came to the Third Reading. I think that is a fairly decent offer after the fighting talk
handed out on the Motion to report Progress. For me to come now offering concessions shows that I, at least, have the temperament that can rise above the feelings of trivial revenge.

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has returned to his place and that he is in good health and able to say "Hear, hear". The hon. Member may not know that in his absence I expressed great fears as to his condition. I am glad to see him back and taking an intelligent interest in the proceedings, which I was afraid he would not be able to take in any proceedings.

Mr. HANNON: I thank the hon. Member for his solicitude.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very gratified by the recovery of the hon. Member. The Moseley Division would be a bad Division for us to fight a by-election. The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that the House will exercise a reasonable prudence. It is in order that we may know when the payment of principal or interest is to be made. We shall be informed as to the methods and as to how it is to be done. We are giving in this Bill very substantial powers. We are not merely taking them away from the Newfoundland Legislature, but from this Legislature, and we are putting them into commission. Let us have some assurance that we are not merely being made the victims of interested parties, that there is a concern both for the resources of this nation and for the resources of Newfoundland that transcends mere money market considerations.
I have been through late and all-night sittings, and I know that at certain points in the night an element of rivalry comes into the whole proceedings—an element to which I do not object and an element which I enjoy. But my own sense of humour and my own appreciation of the chaff that goes on does not blind me to the importance of the task that we are performing here. I have tried from the first moment this issue came before the House twelve months ago—I have watched this whole business with the gravest concern at every stage—I have tried to put a check to what I think are bad and reckless methods, and I do so with long and intimate knowledge of the Dominions Secretary. I regret he is not here. If Members on that side of the House knew
him as well as I know him, they would not be so ready to swallow, holus bolus, what he puts before them.
Members are apt to think that Measures produced by the Treasury Bench are the last word in political wisdom. We discover afterwards the great flaws in many of them. At the time they were going through the House we did not give the serious consideration to them which we were entitled to give. I know also that every Measure which comes before this House receives the close attention only of a minority. Every Bill is in that position. We do not pretend that we scrutinise every Measure brought in. There are some in which we are closely interested in and some in which we are not. We do not bother about the details of the ones we are not closely interested in; we listen to the Debate and follow what is said by those who have studied the proposals. In our view, we are throwing away carelessly in this Bill a lot of powers that we ought to have guarded carefully. We ask the House to accept this Amendment and to retain this measure of control.

5.31 a.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that in the view of the Chairman it would be convenient if the subject matter of an Amendment in my name were discussed with this Amendment, and that the two Amendments be divided on separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was not proposing to select the hon. and learned Member's Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sorry. I had been misinformed. However, I can make my point on this Amendment, although it will take rather a long time, as it is a complicated matter. As the Amendment raises the question of whether or not a control should be retained by this House or whether the matter should be allowed to become a charge on the Consolidated Fund without any control from this House, it raises a matter of very great importance. The Bill says in Clause 3, Sub-section (1):
The Treasury may, for the purposes of any issue of stock by the Government of Newfoundland under the provisions of section two of the Loan Act, guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as they
think fit, the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, the said stock, and the payments to be made to the sinking fund to be established under the Loan Act.
If hon. Members will turn to the second Schedule, which sets out the Loan Act, on page 7, it is in this form:
The provisions of this Act, shall, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, come into operation on the date of the commencement of any Act of the Parliament of the United. Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland authorising the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury in the said United Kingdom (in this Act referred to as "the Treasury") to give a guarantee in respect of the stock the issue of which is authorised by the next succeeding section of this Act.
Of course, the guarantee referred to in that first Section of the Newfoundland Act is the guarantee with which this Amendment is concerned, and, according to the Amendment, must have the consent of the House of Commons. The conditions under which loans thus guaranteed, or stock issued subject to guarantee, may be made, will be found in the second Schedule of the Act:
The Governor-in-Council shall have power to issue on the credit of Newfoundland, at such time or times as he thinks fit, such an amount of stock in pounds sterling (in this Act referred to as "stock") as is required for the purposes—
Then there are set four purposes which I must read to the Committee, because it is very important to appreciate what they are. The first purpose is:
(a) of giving to the holders of any of the securities specified in the First Schedule (in this Act referred to as "the deferred securities") the option to surrender the securities held by them in exchange for a nominal amount of the stock equivalent to the nominal amount of the surrendered securities on the basis of one pound of the stock for every one pound sterling or four dollars and eighty-six and two-thirds hundredths of a dollar of the surrendered securities; 
The first Schedule appears on page 11 and sets out a number of different kinds of bonds and stock which have been issued by the Newfoundland Government and are dated for redemption at various dates. The notice is added:
All bonds of the Newfoundland Government which confer on the holder the option of payment either in sterling or in dollars at par of exchange (that is at $ 4.86⅔ to £1) or at any rate equivalent thereto.
As far as all these in the first Schedule are concerned, the, holders are entitled to have given them in exchange an issue
which is to be made by the Governor-in-Council on the credit of Newfoundland, guaranteed as stated in Clause 3 of the Bill. Paragraph (b) deals with the purpose:
(6) of giving, in the case of any of the obligations of Newfoundland (other than those represented by the deferred securities) selected by the Governor-in-Council for the purposes of this paragraph with the concurrence of the Treasury, the option to holders of any securities held in respect of such obligations to surrender all or any such securities held by them in exchange for such nominal amount of the stock as he may determine; 
As regards that second class, which this Clause is asking the Committee to give the Treasury leave to guarantee, the Governor-in-Council, with the concurrence of the Treasury, has the power to select—

Mr. A BEVAN: As hon. Members opposit have not got the Schedule would it not be better to read it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure hon. Members can follow the argument I am putting. The Governor has not only the right to select the stocks to which this will apply, but also the right to determine the amount of stock they will be given in exchange for the amount of existing stock. In other words, he can say, "I will only give you £50 of new stock for £100 of old stock." The Treasury have to put into force both these powers of selection. These powers of selection are both extremely important and are given in effect to determine the liability of this country as regards capital, interest, and sinking fund, and this, I should have thought, is a matter which this House must retain within its own competence. This House is making the country responsible for these payments, and all these powers of selection which have to be exercised will be exercised without any control from this House whatever, if this charge is allowed to remain on the Consolidated Fund without any supervision by Parliament. It really is a matter of great importance because time after time in this Bill and other Bills the House is quite calmly handing away its financial control. It started when it set up the Tariff Commission, which was the greatest constitutional change since the time of the Stuarts. This is just another example of giving the Treasury, in association with the Government, not only absolute, auto-
cratic, and uncontrolled power, but power also to carry through very large financial transactions which will be a charge on the people of this country in certain events without any control of this House as to why that power is used. I will continue to deal with paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (1) regarding the issue of stock by—
raising sufficient money to discharge any of the obligations of Newfoundland (other than those represented by the deferred securities) selected by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this paragraph with the concurrence of the Treasury.
I do not know whether the people realise the extraordinary power that is going to be given to the Treasury under this paragraph. It is going to give the Treasury power to make a charge on this country for money to discharge any of the obligations of Newfoundland. They are obligations, not to bondholders but to banks, and may be any trading obligations of any sort, kind, or description. Anyone who has read the Budget speech of this year knows that one of the troubles of Newfoundland is that they are accumulating a mass of debts by reason of the corrupt government of the past, and we are here giving a blank cheque to the Treasury to raise money by loan on which we are to guarantee the capital, interest, and sinking fund in order to pay off these debts incurred by admittedly corrupt governments of all sorts. That, I should have thought, was a matter which this House desired to keep under its own control.
I will now turn to paragraph (d), which deals with the raising of:
sufficient money to defray the expenses of and incidental to the issue of the stock and the effecting of any such exchange or repayment as aforesaid." This is merely for the costs and charges of raising the money. In paragraph 2 (2) it proceeds to say that:
the principal moneys and the interest secured by the stock and the payments to be made to the sinking fund to be established under this Act shall be chargeable upon, and payable out of, the revenues and assets of Newfoundland, with priority, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, over any charges thereon not existing at the date of the passing of this Act.
I would like the Financial Secretary to explain just what that means. I am not quite certain what are the other charges not existing at the passing of this Act. This Act imposes a prior charge on the
assets and revenues except for charges not existing at the date of the passing of this Act. Is it contemplated that the Governor in Council will have power to raise sums with a priority over these issues which are guaranteed by the British Government, or will they have any definite priority of charge? This is obviously a matter of very great importance when one considers the question of the guarantee. Then there is the provision in paragraph 2 (4) that:
The Governor in Council may, in advance of the issue of the stock, borrow temporarily on the security of the revenue and assets of Newfoundland, for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of this section.
The Committee will notice that paragraph (c) is one which gives him power to raise money to discharge any of the obligations of Newfoundland, so that he has the power not only to issue stock, but to pay off any obligations, and he has the power to raise money in advance of the issue of stock. The sum mentioned is about £2,500,000, so that we are not dealing with small, insignificant sums, but with large sums running into millions. It sets out in paragraph (c) the conditions as regards the issue of the stock, sinking fund, and the management. I need only say that these are the ordinary provisions for the issue of 3 per cent. stock. In Section 4 (i) the Governor in Council is given power to determine the conditions of issue of the stock, including the rates thereon, and:
to determine the conditions upon which any option of exchange is to be given under that Act, including the determination of the date as from which interest on the stock to be taken in exchange is to accrue, not being a date earlier than the first day of July, 1933; and to regulate the commencement, management and application of the sinking fund to be established under this Act.
In paragraph 4 (2) it says:
The Bank shall have power, subject to the provisions of this Act and with the approval of the Governor in Council, to regulate the mode of issue and the management of the stock, with power in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, to regulate the manner in which the stock may be transferred, the issue of stock certificates to bearer, and the manner of payment of interest and of moneys payable on redemption or repayment, and to apply the general practice of the Bank to the matters aforesaid and to any other matters arising in giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
The next paragraph, No. 5, deals with the postponement of certain securities and provides that
No payment of any interest on, or of any principal of, the deferred securities shall be made, and no interest shall accrue thereon … during the period commencing with the first day of July, 1933, and ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1934; or … at any time in any financial year of the said United Kingdom, if before the first day of January in that financial year an estimate is laid before the Commons House of the Parliament of the said United Kingdom providing for the making of an advance to Newfoundland, whether by way of grant or of loan.
I wish the hon. Gentleman would explain what that provision means. Does that cover the exchange of the deferred securities for the new issues, and, if so, does that mean that under paragraph (b) if in any year a grant or loan is made to Newfoundland, the holders of those deferred securities cannot get any exchange or any payment of interest? It is no doubt my own fault, but I cannot explain the logic of why the holder of deferred securities gets nothing because a grant has been made to the Government of Newfoundland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be so good as to explain that rather important provision.
Thirdly, the holder doe* not get any payment
so long as there exists any liability of Newfoundland to the said United Kingdom arising from the making by the Treasury of any payment on account of a guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of any securities of Newfoundland or from the making by the said United Kingdom of any advance by way of loan to Newfoundland.
That raises exactly the same point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain that too. The Section then deals with the priority of charges on the assets and revenues of Newfoundland—charges in respect of
(a) any of the securities specified in the Second Schedule to this Act.
Then there is the much larger list of four classes of inscribed stock which are all trustee securities and which are therefore dealt with separately.
The Bill says:
Any of the securities (other than the stock) issued for the purpose of raising money to be applied in repayment of, or for the purpose of being offered in exchange for, any of the last mentioned securities on the maturity thereof; shrill, notwithstanding anything in" subsection (2) or subsection (3)
of section two of this Act, have effect in priority to any charges on those revenues and assets in respect of"—
the matters there set out. Then the Bill proceeds:
accordingly if any payment of any sum in respect of which a charge having priority under this section exists is not made on the due date, no payment of any sum in respect of which a charge postponed under this section exists shall be made until the first mentioned sum has been paid or tendered.
I imagine that if such an event arose, the guarantee of the Treasury would be called upon, and it would be on such an occasion that the Treasury would have to pay up either capital or interest in order to satisfy the securities in the priority under which the money was due. It must be obvious to anybody who studies the Schedule that very wide discretionary powers are given as regards the selection of these various securities which can be dealt with. In order to understand the effect of this power, we must consider to some extent the actual position as regards the public debt of Newfoundland, because it is a public debt. That is being dealt with in this Bill in the Second Schedule, and the issues are on the credit of Newfoundland, which we are asked to guarantee. The question as to whether this House has control of that guarantee or not, arises by reason of the repayment of those various issues which had formerly been made. On page 70 of the Report there is a short summary of the position as regards this debt. Paragraph 187 says:
As will be seen from the full statements in Appendices F and G, Newfoundland's public debt falls broadly into eight categories:—

(1) Sterling loans which were raised before 1900 and are not Trustee Stocks in the United Kingdom
£3,331,000


(2) Sterling loans which were raised between 1900 and 1914 and are Trustee Stocks in the United Kingdom
£1,590,500."

There are, of course, the ones in the Second Schedule to the Newfoundland Act on page 11 of the Bill. Paragraph 187 continues:

"(3) Sterling loan raised after the War and ranking as a Trustee Stock in the United Kingdom
£423,500

(4) Sterling - dollar bonds raised after the War which are not Trustee Stocks in the United Kingdom
£5,651,300."

Mr. HANNON: Could not the hon. Gentleman take them as read?

Sir S. CRIPPS: There are many hon. Members who have not got copies of the Report. It continues:
(5) Gold-dollar bonds raised in New York after the War … $31,500,000.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to this, that there is a very large sum in respect of which we are going to be asked, without any control of Parliament, to give the Treasury powers of selecting for repayment, on such a basis as the Treasury, with the Governor in Council, likes to decide. A sum of $31,500,000 gold bonds is presumably held by Americans and was issued to Newfoundland at some time after the war. Then there is a curious No. (6) which has the odd name of
The 'Prosperity Loan,' 1932, and other internal dollar issues $3,354,650.
Then comes No. (7), which is:
Advances by the Canadian Banks operating in Newfoundland.
They seem to have operated to some tune. These amount to $6,256,000 Lastly:
Advances by the United Kingdom Exchequer (including a war-time advance of £400,000) £1,000,000.
That, I understand, is the sum of which we are making a gift to Newfoundland. Apparently the Canadian Banks are not as charitable as we are. Paragraph 188 says:
It is thought that of the bonds coming within categories (4) and (5)—
these are sterling-dollar bonds raised after the war which are not trustee stocks in the United Kingdom, and gold-dollar bonds raised in New York—
about half are held in the United States of America and half in the United Kingdom.
That is to say, of the total of roughly £11,000,000, half is in the United States and half in the United Kingdom.
The sterling stocks coming within categories (1), (2) and (3),
which are trustee stock are pre-1900 non-trustee stock,
are thought to be held almost entirely in the United Kingdom.
Then the Report goes on to deal with the Colonial Stock Act. Paragraph 190 says:
In the case of the dollar bonds issued since the War, the holder has an option of payment in sterling or in dollars (United States or Canadian).
I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether in this case we are going to perform that magnificent act of charity which we performed in the case of the 20-years 5½ per cent. gold bonds, i.e., not to pay back the people in United States dollars, as we are entitled to, but in full gold value at par, which we no longer need to, but which we have done in the case of these bonds. I should like to know whether we are going to impose on the people of this country the same self-denying ordinance with regard to these bonds which can be paid either in sterling or in dollars.
The bonds raised in New York, i.e., those falling within categories (4) and (5), and representing about three-fifths of the whole debt, contain the gold clause,
the Report continues.
Those raised in London, Canada or Newfoundland do not contain that clause.
As I understand it, the bonds raised in New York contain the gold clause. That would be the clause that has now been abrogated by the legislation of the United States of America. This is a typical instance of the absolute necessity of control by this House. Now supposing in this case it is decided to issue or repay these gold dollar bonds, the Chancellor of the Echequer will be able to take one of two courses as he could have done with the. twenty-year bonds. He can repay either in paper dollars or in gold. If he repays in paper dollars, he will save us nearly £1,000,000. If he repays in gold, it will cost this country eventually something like £1,000,000. I believe there are many Members of this House to whom £1,000,000 means a lot. That is one of the causes why we quite seriously suggest to the Committee that it is really important that the Committee should face up to this question of the control of finance. Here is another cause. The House is going to hand over what may be very large financial operations with a very large latitude as regards the matters that may be done without any controlled action by the Treasury.

Mr. MCKEAG: It would be helpful to the Committee if the hon. and learned
Gentleman could indicate to the Committee those paragraphs of the Report which he does not intend to read.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I could do that quite easily, but it would take rather a long time. If the hon. Member will tell me which clause he would like me to start on, I would go through the paragraphs and give the details. Paragraph 191 deals with the rates of interest, which are set out there. I would like to point out that here are stocks bearing from three to six-and-a-half per cent. in rate of interest. Someone has got to decide, when the question of the issuing of this guaranteed stock comes, the ratio which is to be applied between the six-and-a-half per cent. dollar bond and the new three per cent. dollar stock which is going to be issued. That is a task which will fall to the Treasury. If it is fixed at 50, it will cost so much, and if it is fixed at 40, it will cost so much less. All that is a matter which is going to determine the amount of guarantee and is being left entirely outside the control of this House. These loans were issued at or near par and the rates are true, effective rates. The average rate is just under 5 per cent. We are going to exchange for a guaranteed loan of 3 per cent. or less. Someone has got to estimate the difference in security between Newfoundland credit on the debt and the issue of British Government credit. That is a matter which should be supervised by this House and should not be allowed to go by default. There is an interesting passage which just gives a picture of the whole. It sums it up in paragraph 192, which says:
The total debt amounts to just under $101,000,000., or £20.746,000 at par of exchange.
The total interest charge amount to some 34,860,000, £1,000.000 at par of exchange, to which must be added S140,000, or £28,000 per annum for sinking fund.
The provision for debt service in the current Budget is §5.200,000, a figure which allows for exchange fluctuation and for the premium on interest payments in New York.
'The Prosperity Loan, 1932' (category (6) and the Bank and Government loans … are repayable at any time. In the case of the other loans there is no provision for repayment pending maturity.
The Report also refers to certain tables which reflect the trend of Newfoundland's credit in London since the War. I hope
I have given the Committee sufficient information to enable them to arrive at a decision on this extremely important matter. It is a matter which, if it had been debated in an earlier Parliament, would have raised a most profound constitutional issue. We have passed from the stage when the majority in this House have any interest whatsoever in what happens to the money which the taxpayer pays. They are no longer concerned in how it is squandered, so long as they have some opportunity to get some remission of direct taxation or so long as it is not spent in social services or public works. When it comes to squandering money in Austria or America, or in other places outside these islands, they are uninterested in what happens to the money. Here we are dealing with what is to be put up and guaranteed for a loan which may exceed £20,000,000. We are going to guarantee the interest payment on that loan, which will amount to about £300,000 a year. We arc going to guarantee a sinking fund. The amount of our ultimate liabilities will fall to be determined by various selections and decisions made by the Treasury. If we pass this Clause without the Amendment, we are going to part for ever from any contol of these matters. I do ask the Committee to consider very seriously the insertion of some words which will retain for this House the contol over these very large financial operations.

6.10 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No doubt the reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton

(Mr. Maxton) is that he has rightly claimed for himself the large part he has played in these discussions. He has been consistent, ingenious, and good-humoured. He now moves an Amendment that any guarantee should receive the approval of the House of Commons and that a statement should be made to the House of Commons. That is exactly what this Clause assures him. A guarantee, of course, in its very nature can only be given once. That is at the time of the issue of the stock. It is not a recurrent, guarantee, but is given once and comes into effect automatically in the event of a loan not being met. Therefore, there is no other occasion on which the House of Commons can be consulted except on this occasion. By this Clause we are authorising the British Parliament to give the guarantee. In order, however, to ensure that the House of Commons shall be acquainted with the circumstances in which the guarantee comes into effect, there is Sub-section (3), providing that it shall be laid before the Houses of Parliament. I therefore suggest that if this Clause is passed, hon. Members will secure the desideratum of securing the consent of the House of Comons before the guarantee is made.

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139;, Noes, 26.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
 [6.15 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Christie, James Archibald
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Aske, Sir Robert William
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hartington, Marquess of


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks. Aylesbury)
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. ('Portsm'th,C.)
Dickie, John P.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bernays, Robert
Eastwood, John Francis
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elmley, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Borodale, Viscount
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Ker, J. Campbell


Bossom, A. C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leckie, J. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gluckstein. Louis Halle
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burghley, Lord
Goff, sir Park
Llewellin, Major John J.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Goldie, Noel B.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grimston, R. V.
McKeag, William


McKie, John Hamilton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thompson, Luke


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rickards, George William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Robinson, John Roland
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ropner. Colonel L.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tree, Ronald


Morris, John Patrick (Saltord, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Scone, Lord
Weymouth, Viscount


Nicholson, Godtrey (Morpeth)
Shaw, Helen a. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Nunn, William
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Palmer. Francis Noel
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Penny, Sir George
Storey, Samuel



Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Petherick, M.
Strauss, Edward A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton-
Womersley.


Pickering, Ernest H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George.
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot. John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 140.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[6.22 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker. John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dickie, John P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eastwood, John Francis
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Elmley, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bernays, Robert
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Ker, J. Campbell


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Borodale, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leckie, J. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Leighton. Major B. E. P.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goff, Sir Park
Llewellin, Major John J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goldie, Noel B.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burghley, Lord
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
McKeag, William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Chapman. Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Christie, James Archibald
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cooke, Douglas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thompson, Luke


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rickards, George William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Robinson, John Roland
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ropner, Colonel L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tree, Ronald


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nicholson, Godtrey (Morpeth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nunn, William
Scone, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Weymouth, Viscount


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Penny, Sir George
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Storey, Samuel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Petherick, M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Strauss, Edward A.
Womersley, Walter James


Pickering, Ernest H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sutcliffe. Harold
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Commander Southby.

Motion, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major NATHAN rose—

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 26.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
 [6.30 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palkes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Bernays, Robert
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Robinson. John Roland


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Borodale, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge. Norah Cecil


Bossom, A. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E, W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Kerr, Lieut-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Scone, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith. Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Burghley, Lord
Leckle, J. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, Samuel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Christie, James Archibald
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Colman, N. C. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cooke, Douglas
McKeag, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson, Luke


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dickie, John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Eastwood. John Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd a Chisw'k)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle. Cyril Fullard
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fraser, Captain Ian
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills. Wilfrid D.


Gluckstein. Louis Halle
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
Womersley, Walter James


Goldie, Noel B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graves, Marjorie
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocke, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry

Question put according, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Treasury to make temporary advances to Newfoundland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 26.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
 [6.39 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raikes. Henry V. A. M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bernays, Robert
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Robinson, John Roland


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Scone, Lord


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Oulnton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burghley, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leckie, J. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey. Samuel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stourton. Hon. John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Christie, James Archibald
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Column, N. C. D,
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McKeag, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson. Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dickie, John P.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tichfield. Major the Marquess of


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, Ronald


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Entwistle, Cyril Fu'lard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fraser, Captain Ian
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nicholson, Godlrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
Womersley, Walter James


Goldie, Noel B.
O'Donovan. Dr. William James



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graves, Marjorie
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy. Thomas W.
Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry

6.48 a.m.

Major NATHAN: We all appreciate the readiness and the courtesy with which the Financial Secretary has dealt with
the various Amendments and Clauses which have been discussed. But he has a certain right to feel aggrieved that he has been left unsupported in questions of great constitutional importance and great legal perplexity. He was left without the support of either of the Law officers of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made a formidable attack upon the provisions of Clause 3, and in the course of a speech which was none too long for the subject—

The CHAIRMAN: This is Clause 4.

Major NATHAN: I am coming to Clause 4 by way, if I may, of Clause 3.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to come to Clause 4 or else resume his seat.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not in Order for an hon. Member to speak on Clause 4 and mention Clause 3?

Major NATHAN: I shall put my point in a slightly different form. I have no desire to infringe any rules of procedure, and in order that I shall not do so I will put my argument in a somewhat different form. I will say that Clause 4 gives authority to the Treasury to make advances, to make loans to the Government of Newfoundland in respect of those matters provided for in Clause 3, namely, that the Treasury shall give a guarantee.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to read Clause 3.

Major NATHAN: I shall follow the suggestion you are good enough to make, but I think I shall be able to satisfy the Committee that that is the provision of this Clause. I do not wish to make myself so unnecessarily tedious to the House as to read Clause 3 in its entirety.

The CHAIRMAN: I must really warn the hon. Member seriously not to trifle with the Chair. I have told him that he must discuss Clause 4 and not Clause 3, and I reminded him just now that he was mistaken in saying that under Clause 4 the Treasury had power to make advances under Clause 3. If he reads the Clause he will find he is wrong.

Major NATHAN: If you will allow me to say so, with the greatest respect, you profoundly misunderstood me if you have taken the view that I have wished in any
way to trifle with the Chair. That has always been very far from my mind. Although a long time has passed in the Debate and there have been friendly exchanges, I am endeavouring to address a serious argument to the House. Clause 4 (1) provides that the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund by way of temporary advance to the Government of Newfoundland any sum which that Government has power to borrow temporarily under Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Loan Act. I think you will appreciate, since I have read that Subsection to Clause 4, that to the extent at all events to which temporary advances are made to the Government of Newfoundland of the money which that Government has power to borrow temporarily under the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Loan Act, it covers, though in a different form and for a temporary purpose instead of a permanent purpose, part of the subject matter of Clause 3. Of that I entertain no doubt. Now I look at what the scheme of Section 2 of the Loan Act is in order to understand what the Newfoundland Government may borrow.
I do not propose to take the Sub-sections in their entirety. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because I am anxious that you, Sir, should feel, as is the fact, that I have no desire to occupy the House longer than is necessary to explain the point. Section 2 provides that stock may be issued, and that the holders of the deferred securities are to receive current amounts of this stock, and paragraph (6) that certain securities are to receive of this stock such a denomination as the Governor may think fit. Paragraph (c) provides, in the first place, for money to be raised by the Newfoundland Government sufficient to discharge any of the obligations of Newfoundland other than those represented by the deferred securities guaranteed by the Governor in Council with the concurrence of the Treasury. The point I desire an opportunity to address to the House is this. What are the obligations referred to in paragraph (c) for the discharge of which money may be raised by the Newfoundland Government by way of loan? In another form my question is, what are the obligations for which the British Government are to put the Newfoundland Government in funds? "Obligations" is by far the widest term that
can be used for any engagement of a financial character. It is far wider than the term "securities" used in Section 1 of the Loan Act. It cannot be merely the securities mentioned in the First Schedule to the Loan Act. Therefore, it seems to me that it must mean something far different.
I look to the report of the Royal Commission for guidance. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 specifically provides that stock may be issued on the credit of Newfoundland by the Governor in Council for the express purpose of raising the money referred to in paragraph (c). I hope I have made good the point which I submitted seriously and which you apparently mistakenly thought that I did not submit with the seriousness I intended. What are these obligations? It is very difficult to get any guidance from the report of the Royal Commission. The public debt referred to in paragraph 187 on page 70 is very difficult to indentify with the stocks set out in the First Schedule to the Loan. Act.
I do not believe that they can be identified, nor do I believe that a reference to Appendices F or G in the Report will give any assistance in identifying the stocks set out in the First Schedule to the Loan Act. The relevance of it is that the Treasury is asking to be given leave to provide the necessary money to discharge these various cash obligations as a preliminary to the issue of stock. I think we ought to know before approving of this Clause what is the extent of the authority which it has given to the Treasury to dispense in cash by way of a loan to Newfoundland.
So much for the public debts, but there are other obligations. I have not quoted them all, but let me take one as an example. It is a kind of an obligation upon which the Treasury may be called upon to finance the Newfoundland Government. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to paragraph 399 on page 145 of the Report, he will find a reference to the International Power and Paper Company of Newfoundland, Ltd., which "has had a chequered history." The Report says in the following paragraph, that
the 'B' stock was similarly guaranteed by the Newfoundland Government and was similarly secured by a trust deed giving the trustees second fixed and floating charges.
The "A" stock was guaranteed by the United Kingdom Treasury under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921. The Company has passed through many vicissitudes, which are set out in this Report, and on page 148 it is shown that part of this loan capital £2,000,000 is in 5½ per cent. "B" debenture stock guaranteed by the Newfoundland Government. At any time an application may arise under that debenture. Is the British Treasury likely to be called upon to make any payment in cash to the holders of a debenture? I find on page 152, paragraph 423:
The fact that the Newfoundland Government has guaranteed £2,000,000 worth of Stock makes it of special importance that all possible measures should be taken to facilitate the restoration of normal conditions at Corner Brook. The evidence submitted to us showed that there was no immediate danger of the Government being called upon to implement its guarantee; but prospects for the future must depend largely on world conditions.
I want also to know whether the Treasury have formed any opinion whether there is a liability under the guarantee of this £2,000,000 worth of debentures, and also whether there are other obligations of the Newfoundland Government of a like nature, and if so, of what kind are they and what are their dates for maturing? The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) referring to the various loans on page 70 of the Report, pointed out that the Prosperity Loan and the Bank and Government Loans are repayable at any time. I should like to know whether the Treasury has any information as to whether, and if so when, those liabilities will mature. I feel that when authority is sought by the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums of money unspecified and unlimited in amount, the House of Commons is entitled to know before it parts with them exactly what the position is.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The matters to which the hon. Member refers are relevant to Clause 4 and are fully explained in the White Paper. In regard to the specially secured loans, details are also given in the White Paper. They are the Prosperity Loan, the Bank and Government Loans, and the 4 per cent. sterling loan.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS rose—

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[7.10 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, George William


Bernays, Robert
Howard, Tom Forrest
Robinson, John Roland


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Runge, Narah Cecil


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
James, Wing. Com. A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Boyce, H. Leslie
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ker, J. Campbell
Scone, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Burghley, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leckie, J. A.
Storey, Samuel


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, Edward A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lockwood, John C (Hackney, C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Christie, James Archibald
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Sutcliffe, Harold


Colman, N. C. D.
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomas, Jamas P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McKeag, William
Thompson, Luke


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dickie, John P.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morris, John Patrick (Sallord, N.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nunn, William
Womersley, Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Goldie, Noel B.
Palmer. Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


Graves, Marjorie
Petherick, M.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 23.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 24.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Robinson. John Roland


Christie, James Archibald
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooke, Douglas
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leech, Dr. J. w.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Scone, Lord


Dickie, John p.
Lodar, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Eastwood, John Francis
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spencer. Captain Richard A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McKeag, William
Storey, Samuel


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Strauss, Edward A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Marsden. Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Gluckstein. Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thompson, Luke


Goff, Sir Park
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Goldie, Noel B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorp. Linton Theodore


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Graves, Marjorie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tree, Ronald


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson. Godlrey (Morpeth)
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Donovan. Dr. William James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Holdsworth. Herbert
Palmer. Francis Noel
Weymouth, Viscount


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Whyte. Jardine Bell


Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wills. Wilfrid D.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney.N.)
Raikes. Henry V. A. M.
Womersley, Walter James


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)



Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey. Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
McEntee. Valentine L.



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Colonial Development Act, 1929.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS rose —

Division No. 44.]
AYES.
[7.26 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Agnew. Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dickie, John P.


Allen. Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley Lord
Eastwood. John Francis


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burqin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Edmondson. Major A. J.


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Elmley, Viscount


Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Caporn. Arthur Cecil
Emrys-Evans P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edqbaston)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bernays, Robert
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Christie, James Archibald
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Colman. N. C. D.
Fraser. Captain Ian


Borodale, Viscount
Cooke. Douglas
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goff, Sir Park


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Goldie. Noel B.

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 25.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Scone, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Storey, Samuel


Hartington, Marquess of
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Strauss, Edward A.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Howard, Tom Forrest
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William
Thompson, Luke


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Ker, J. Campbell
Petherick, M.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pickering, Ernest H.
Tree, Ronald


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leech, Dr. J. w.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Weymouth, Viscount


Llewellin, Major John J.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rickards, George William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Robinson, John Roland
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Walter James


McKeag, William
Runge, Norah Cecil



McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Cocks Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
 [7.33 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dickie, John P.
James. Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eastwood, John Francis
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Emrye-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bernays, Robert
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Llewellin, Major John J.


Birchall. Major Sir John Dearman
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Borodale, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
McKeag, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McKie, John Hamilton


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves, Marjorie
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Burghley, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Burgin, Dr Edward Leslie
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gunston, Contain D. W.
Marsden. Commander Arthur


Ceporn. Arthur Cecil
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hartington. Marquess of
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, Col R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Holdsworth. Herbert
Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Christie, James Archibald
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Colman, N. C. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cooke. Douglas
Howard, Tom Forrest
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Muirhead, Lieut,-Colonel A, J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes 25.

Nunn, William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Penny, Sir George
Scone, Lord
Tree, Ronald


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Petherick, M.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Pickering, Ernest H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Raikes. Henry V. A. M.
Storey, Samuel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, James S, C. (Stirling)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Womersley, Walter James


Rickards, George William
Sutcliffe, Harold



Robinson, John Roland
Tate, Mavis Constance
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thompson, Luke
Sir George Bowyer.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Thorp, Linton Theodore





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Craves.

7.45 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is the usual custom for a Closure Motion to be accepted before a Clause to which there are no Amendments has been debated? This is not intended as a reflection on your Ruling or any sort of attack.

The CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way he has put the question. I feel a little doubt as to whether I ought to answer the question at all. There are undoubtedly a number of precedents where the Closure has been moved and accepted and carried on a Clause on which there has been no Amendment. Each one must depend on the circumstances. There was nothing, as far as I could see, in this particular Clause on which hon. Members could not obtain all necessary information by reference to the Colonial Development Act, and there are plenty of precedents for what has been done.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very much obliged for your reply. I may point out that my reason in raising the point of Order was a reference in Erskine May, page 343, which states that a Motion should not be made for a Closure unless it appears to the Chair that the Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of a minority. Clearly, if there is a Clause on which no Amendments have been debated at all and the Clause itself has not been dis-
cussed and the Closure Motion can be accepted without any discussion, carried to its logical conclusion that means that the Closure Motion should be accepted on Clause 1, 2, and so on to the end, and the Bill could be carried by the simple process of having 12 divisions, one after the other, and all Parliamentary forms would be rendered a farce.

The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Gentleman first raised this point I felt some doubt as to whether I ought to answer the question. The conduct of the Chair in accepting the Closure is not a matter which can be called into question or criticised. But the hon. Gentleman was good enough to put it in such a courteous way that I desired to answer his question. I have before me the passage to which he refers.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I just wish to explain one matter which I wished to raise on Clause 5. It was a question of the transfer of duties from the Colonial Secretary to the Dominions Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot discuss the matter.

CLAUSE 6.—(Short Title).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

7.48 a.m.

Mr. COCKS: We have now arrived at the last Clause of this very important
Bill. We have been discussing the Bill all through the night, and now as the pale light of dawn is penetrating through the windows and, in the words of a distinguished Member, even illuminating the monstrosities on the Front Bench, this last Clause is a very important one.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
 [7.48 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E, B.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmth, C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bernays. Robert
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ropner, Colonel L


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Capt. M, J. (Brigg)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E, W.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Boyce, H. Leslie
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ker, J. Campbell
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Scone, Lord


Burghley, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, Samuel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Edgbaston)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Christie, James Archibald
Loder, Captain J. da Vere
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colman, N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McKeag, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKie, John Hamilton
Thompson, Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dickie, John P.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John
Tree, Ronald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Weymouth, Viscount


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nicholson, Godlrey (Morpeth)
Womersley, Walter James


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William



Goldie, Noel B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sir Frederick Thomson and Commander Southby.


Graves, Marjorie
Penny, Sir George





NOES.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
 [7.56 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Aske, Sir Robert William
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portdm'th, C.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bernays, Robert

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 25.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 25.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rickards, George William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Cot. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leckie, J. A.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Christie, James Archibald
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Storey, Samuel


Dickie, John P.
McKeag, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Eastwood. John Francis
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elmley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thompson, Luke


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mitchell, Harold p. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thorp. Linton Theodore


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Goff, Sir Park
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Tree, Ronald


Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Graves, Marjorie
Nunn, William
Weymouth, Viscount


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Womersley, Walter James


Hartington, Marquess of
Petherick, M.



Holds worth. Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickering, Ernest H.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Major George Davies.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, Jamas


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert



Cripps, Sir Stafford
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Tinker.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Address presented to His Majesty by the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Newfoundland.)

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
 [8.5 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Elmley, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Entwistle. Cyril Fullard


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fleming Edward Lascelles


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Christie, James Archibald
Fox, Sir Gifford


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fraser. Captain Ian


Bernays, Robert
Cooke, Douglas
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goff, Sir Park


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crookshank, Capt, H, C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goldie, Noel B.


Borodale, Viscount
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bossom, A. C.
Dickie, John P.
Graves. Marjorie


Boyce, H. Leslie
Donner, P. W.
Grimston, R. V.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eastwood, John Francis
Gunston, Captain D. W.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 24.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hartington, Marquess of
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Storey, Samuel


Howard. Tom Forrest
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Palmer, Francis Noel
Tate, Mavis Constance


Ker, J. Campbell
Penny, Sir George
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thompson, Luke


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Petherick, M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leckie, J. A.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Leech. Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Llewellin. Major John J.
Ramsay. Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tree, Ronald


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Reid, James S. C (Stirling)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Weymouth, Viscount


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rickards, George William
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McKeag. William
Robinson, John Roland
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McKie. John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Macmillan. Maurice Harold
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Walter James


Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot
Runge, Norah Cecil



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Major George Davies.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Scone, Lord



Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfileld, John William
Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George.
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Tinker.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Act of the Legislature of Newfoundland entitled the Loan Act, 1933.)

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
 [8.14 a.m.


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Dickie, John P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Aske. Sir Robert William
Donner, P. W.
Ker, J. Campbell


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Eastwood, John Francis
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Latham. Sir Herbert Paul


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.


Bernays, Robert
Entwistle. Cyril Fullard
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Liewellin, Major John J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Borodale, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lymington, Viscount


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
McKeag, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graves. Marjorie
McKie, John Hamilton


Burgin, Dr Edward Leslie
Grimston. R. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden. Commander Arthur


Chapman. Col. R. (Houghton-Ie-Spring)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Christie. James Archibald
Holdsworth. Herbert
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Mitchell. Harold P. (Br'tf"d & Chisw'k)


Cooke Douglas
Horsbruqh. Florence
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howard. Tom Forrest
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cross, R. H.
Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 24.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nunn, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thompson, Luke


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Palmer, Francis Noel
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Penny, Sir George
Scone, Lord-
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Petherick, M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tree, Ronald


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst n)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Storey, Samuel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Womersley, Walter James


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Rickards, George William
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, John Roland
Tate, Mavis Constance
Sir Frederick Thomson and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Ropner, Colonel L.






NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
Maclean, Ne1l (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
 [8.21 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Graves, Marjorie
Nunn, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Porlsm'th, C.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bernays, Robert
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)


Borodale, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross, Ronald D.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Christie, James Archibald
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cooke, Douglas
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lymington, Viscount
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Storey, Samuel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strauss, Edward A.


Dickie, John P.
McKeag, William
Stuart. Lord C. Crichton-


Donner, P. W.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sutcliffe, Harold


Eastwood, John Francis
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Tate, Mavis Constance


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Elmley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thompson, Luke


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fleming. Edward Lascelies
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Adrian C.
Tree, Ronald


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goff, Sir Park
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 24.

Weymouth, Viscount
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whyte, Jardine Bell
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Daggar, George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[8.28 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Balniel, Lord
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Renwick. Major Gustav A.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rickards, George William


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Robinson, John Roland


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Borodale, Viscount.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rose, Ronald D.


Bossom, A. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Scone, Lord


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Christie, James Archibald
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Storey, Samuel


Colman, N. C. D.
Lymington, Viscount
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cross. R. H.
McKeag, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKie. John Hamilton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Dickie, John P.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thompson, Luke


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tree, Ronald


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Fox, Sir Gilford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William
Womersley, Walter James


Goldie, Noel B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graves, Marjorie
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sir George Penny and Captain Sir


Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
George Bowyer.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Cape, Thomas
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Cocks. Frederick Seymour
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 23.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

UNEMPLOYMENT [MONEY] (No. 2).

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1933, and to make further provision for the training and assistance of persons who are capable of, and available for, work but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)—

A. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act amending the Unemployment Insurance Acts, to provide (from and after the date on which the provisions of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, empowering the Treasury to make advances to the Unemployment Fund, and paragraph (4) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, are repealed)—

(1) for the payment out of the Consolidated (Fund—

(a) to the National Debt Commissioners of such sums, by way of temporary advances to the Unemployment Fund (to be repaid with interest to the Exchequer within six months), as may be necessary to make good any insufficiency of the fund to pay any instalment required by Part I. of the said Act to be paid towards the discharge of the liability charged on that fund by section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, in respect of advances made thereunder with interest thereon and the liability incurred by the Treasury to the National Debt Commissions in respect of the provision of money for the purpose of the said advances;
(b) to the Unemployment Fund of such sums by way of temporary advances (to be repaid to the Exchequer with interest before the end of the financial year) as may be required from time to time for the purpose of making any payments properly falling to be made out of the Unemployment Fund other than any such instalment as aforesaid and the repayment of such temporary advances as are mentioned in the last foregoing sub-paragraph;

(2) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such sums by way of advances to the Unemployment Fund (to be re-
812
paid to the Exchequer with interest not later than the end of the second financial year next following) as appear to the Treasury to be required to enable that fund to discharge any liabilities (including the due repayment of any such temporary advances as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (1)), which, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Treasury, that fund is or will shortly become insufficient to discharge;
(b) of any increase attributable to the passing of Part I. of the said Act in the sum payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of subsection (3) of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by section one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929, or by virtue of sections forty or forty-one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, or of section three of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931;
(c) of any sum by which any education grants under any other Act are increased by reason of the additional powers and duties conferred and imposed by Part I of the said Act on education authorities;
(d) of any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the amounts which are by virtue of paragraphs (1) and (2) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, to be paid into the Unemployment Fund; and

B. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act amending the Unemployment Insurance Acts, to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in carrying Part I of the said Act into effect; and

C. it is expedient, in connection with the provisions of the said Act relating to Unemployment Assistance, to provide—

(1) for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the several members of any Unemployment Assistance Board constituted by the said Act of such salaries as may be determined by the Treasury at the time of their appointment respectively, so, however, that the aggregate amount of the salaries of the members of the Board shall not exceed the sum of twelve thousand pounds per annum; and
(2) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of the salaries and allowances of the officers and servants of the said Board and the remuneration, salaries and allowances of the members, officers, and servants of any appeal tribunals constituted under Part II of the said Act;
(b) of such contributions to the said Board as the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the said Board and with the consent of the Treasury, may determine to be sufficient together with annual local authority contributions to
813
enable the Board to pay to such persons as—

(i) are between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five years; and
(ii) are either persons whose normal occupation is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932, or persons, who, not having normally been engaged in any remunerative occupation since attaining the age of sixteen years, might reasonably have expected that their normal occupation would have been such employment as aforesaid but for the industrial circumstances of the districts in which they reside; and
(iii) are capable of and available for work,
allowances based on their needs and those of their households, regard being had to the resources of all members of the household other than such resources as may be excepted by the said Act;
(c) of such contributions to the said Board as the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the Board, may with the consent of the Treasury determine to be necessary to enable the Board to provide or arrange for the provision of training, instruction or occupation for such persons as aforesaid, to make payments to such persons while undergoing training, to make adjustments with public assistance authorities in respect of relief granted to persons who are or might have been entitled to such allowances as aforesaid and to defray any administrative and incidental expenses incurred in carrying Part II of the said Act into effect, and any expenses incurred in giving effect to reciprocal arrangements made thereunder in relation to Northern Ireland;
(d) of any superannuation allowances, lump sums and gratuities payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act;
(e) of the expenses of any Government department attributable to the carrying of Part II. of the Act into effect.

In this Resolution the expression "annual local authority contributions" means, in relation to each of the three years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, contributions to be made to the said Board annually by the councils of counties, county boroughs, and large burghs, computed as follows: the contribution of each council shall (subject to any adjustments necessitated by changes in boundaries and, in the first year, to an abatement in respect of the fact that the said Act will not be fully in operation for the whole of the year) be three-fifths of the sum of the two following amounts, that is to say,—

(i) the estimated expenditure (excluding the cost of administration) incurred by the council in the year ending on the thirty-first day of March or, in
814
the case of Scotland, the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, on the provision of relief (not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom Part II. of the said Act would have applied if it had then been in operation, upon the assumption that no persons would in that year have been deemed not to be such persons by reason of special reports made in their case under the provisions of Part II. of the said Act; and
(ii) the difference between the estimated cost of administration incurred by the council in the said year in connection with the provision of relief and the estimated cost of administration which would have been so incurred if Part II. of the said Act had then been in operation;
subject, however, in the case of any council which in the present financial year is receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas, to the limitation that the annual contribution of the council shall not exceed the difference between that grant and the sum of the two amounts as aforesaid, and subject also in the case of all councils in any of the said years in which the cost of relief provided in Great Britain by reason of persons becoming chargeable to such councils in consequence—

(i) of the withholding of allowances in cases of special difficulty owing to the breach of conditions on which the allowances were granted; and
(ii) of persons becoming ineligible for allowances by reason of special reports made in their case under the provisions of Part II. of the said Act,
exceeds five per cent. of the total contributions, to a reduction equal in the case of any council to a proportionate part of the excess: Provided that for the purpose of calculating the contributions for any of the said years of any council, which in the present financial year is receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas, the sum of the two amounts aforesaid shall be reduced by an amount equal to that grant."—(King's Recommendation signified) [Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I move at this stage, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was going to give my reasons for the Motion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have informed the hon. Member that I cannot accept such a Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I not submit my reasons for asking leave to move the Motion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would be out of order. The hon. Member is entitled to ask whether he can move the Motion, and it is left to my discretion whether I accept it or not. I have already informed him that I cannot accept it.

Mr. MAXTON: There is more to be said on it than that. I do not want to cause any trouble in the House, but if ever there was an occasion when the Motion to report Progress was in order it is now. I know perfectly well that under the Standing Orders you, Captain Bourne, have a perfect right to refuse a Motion to report Progress if you believe it is being moved on purely frivolous grounds, but that certainly does not apply to the present circumstances. To start discussing one of the most important items of Government business under the present conditions is preposterous, and I think we are entitled to have from the Government some statement of their intentions. I ask you to reconsider the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the Motion to report Progress at this moment. If the hon. Member moves it shortly after we have started business, I will consider accepting it.

8.41 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether any statement can be made regarding the Motion on the Order Paper? We have had a long discussion and are entitled to a statement from the Government as to what they intend to do regarding the Money Resolution and the Amendments on the Paper. Might I formally move to Report Progress, so that the Government could reply to that question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We can have one speech, and then I shall consider accepting a Motion to Report Progress.

8.42 a.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I think it would be proper to have a statement from the Treasury Bench. I am within the recollection of the Committee when I point out that on the last occasion on which we discussed the Money Resolution no reply was made to the Debate from the Front Bench. We did have a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on an Amendment, but not on the general discussion when the Financial Resolution was aban-
doned, at the request of the Government, because they desired to re-commit the Resolution with the Amendment making provision for the new arrangements with the local authorities. I should have thought it would have been courteous to the Committee if we had had a statement from the Government in reply to certain questions put in the course of that Debate. The Government have not thought fit to take that course, and it will be necessary for me to recapitulate some of the arguments used when this matter was last discussed in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labour and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may have an opportunity of putting the Committee right or giving the assurance which we think necessary on this point.
The Debate terminated on Monday in a fashion, I think, somewhat unfavourable to the Government. I think there was universal anxiety concerning the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury to the Amendment. It was proposed that the charge of the Unemployment Assistance Board should be put on Supply instead of on the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself asked whether it would be possible if the Unemployment Assistance Board remained chargeable to the Consolidated Fund for any hon. Member to put on the Order Paper a question relating to one of his constituents, such as how he had been treated by a member of the Board. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I suppose, found himself in a difficulty. If he had admitted that such a question could not be put down, he would have been revealing clearly that this Financial Resolution takes away the administration of this Fund entirely from the supervision of the House and deprives a Member of Parliament of his legitimate rights to represent his constituents in this Assembly. We put this issue very seriously to the Government, Is it their intention that the administration of this Board, and the conduct of the officials appointed by the Board, shall be entirely outside the day-to-day supervision of this House?
We had it from the Minister of Labour, in his opening speech, that he wished to divest himself entirely of the obligation to answer questions about individual cases. We would like to point out that the essence of the needs test is its individual application, and if the individual
is not to be able to obtain protection through the advocacy or assistance of his Member of Parliament he will be deprived, under the provisions of the Bill, of a protection afforded him for three centuries under the Poor Law and be really disenfranchised. The essence of democracy is not merely the right to elect Parliament once every five years. If it is reduced to such meagre proportions it ceases to have any real meaning. The essence of democracy is the added right of the citizen to have access to the seat of power, in order to make known his grievances, and have his grievances ventilated and even to have them articulated on the steps of the Throne itself. That is the very essence of democracy. If that is taken away, the content drops out and it is merely an empty form.
All this Bill does is to carry this country one step further on the most sinister road—the road we have travelled in the last four or five years. We have set up several milestones on that road? There was the Trade Disputes Act of 1926, there was the resuscitation of what everybody thought was a dead Act at the time of the imprisonment of Tom Mann, and there is, all over the country, the suppression by the police of the right of demonstration—in Glamorganshire and other parts of the country. And now there is, in this present Bill, a declaration of intention on the part of the Government substantially to remove protection from hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen. I have spoken privately to many hon. Members in all parts of this House, and they are by no means happy about this provision. There are some men in this House who still feel that the sanctity of Parliamentary institutions must be defended against attacks, whether they be from the Right or Left. I have always held that there was no danger to Parliamentary institutions from the Left, but that the danger was always from the Eight.
We have been engaged in the last 24 hours in removing democracy from one of our Dominions because it came into conflict with the bondholders. We are now removing democracy from the British House of Commons, because it would give the Minister of Labour sleepless nights. I seriously ask the Government to have regard to this matter. If this Resolu-
tion goes through in its present form, a man will have no means at all of making his grievances known, except by the expedient of throwing a stone through a shop window. I suggest to the Government that it would be better for them, for the preservation of peace in this Realm, and for the vitality of Parliamentary institutions, that they should restore in this Bill the right of an aggrieved person to use his Member of Parliament to present his grievances on the floor of the House of Commons. The point was made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in a passionate and eloquent plea for the right to defend himself before the local tribunal. If hon. Members will recall the provisions of this Bill they will realise that an unemployed person can appeal to the local tribunal only with the consent of the chairman. In other words, he is not able to appeal at all. If only a judge can say whether you can go to a court you have no real access. If a man canot appeal to his local tribunal he can only appeal to his local Member of Parliament. The man will have no assistance at all. He will have no learned counsel, nor will he be able to make an appeal in a judicial manner, but will be entirely at the mercy of an official sitting in private on regulations which are bound to be soulless and with no application to individual cases.
The embarrassment of the Government would have been removed of course if they had agreed to abolish the means test. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Labour will furnish us with a more adequate reply than that of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the last occasion. It is nonsense to argue that the members of this Unemployment Assistance Board will be on the same footing as His Majesty's judges. They will be making and administering the law. The essence of the matter is the application of the regulations to individual cases. These men will not, in fact, be asked to adjudicate, they will be administering and legislating. Surely, it is not sound constitutional practice for these men to be granted the immunity from criticism enjoyed by His Majesty's judges. There will be great clamour all over the country for attention to be paid to these cases, and a number of individual cases will not be made public until they become
a positive menace. Only when there is an accumulation of cases will aggrieved persons seek others out and direct the attention of the State to their grievances.
I have found in discussing unemployment insurance in this House that somehow or other hon. Members on the Government side of the House do not see it with the same urgency as we do on this side. I have come to the conclusion that it is not because they are less sympathetically inclined, but because their contact with the unemployed is somewhat more remote than ours. They look on the unemployed as a social category. We who live among them know what they are. Unemployment in Great Britain is unequally distributed over the country. It is to a large extent aggregated in South Wales, Lancashire, the North-East Coast, and East Scotland. Because of that, it is very difficult for hon. Members to see this problem in the same way as we do who live with it. It is that aspect of the matter which has probably prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer from approaching the problem of relief to distressed areas in as sympathetic a way as we expected. On the last occasion when he spoke he was quite angered at the way he had been treated. I understand that we have to be very nice to him. It is not the justice of the case that wins concessions from him, but the docility and humility with which we put our claims forward. He said that not only did he resent hon. Members attacking him in the House, but that he also wanted to reward those Members who had been so nice to him.
If I approach this subject with a somewhat slow curve, I may say that I am anxious not to say anything which might offend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prevent the distressed areas from having any additional assistance. The local authorities have not had very much time in which to consider the effect of the Chancellor's last concession, and I would like to point out that the House has laboured under considerable difficulty in discussing this Financial Resolution, as it has been changed from time to time. I do not understand why this last minute decision was necessary. The Government have had two years to make up their
mind, it has been promised in two King's speeches, and now that they bring it before the House they have to alter the Bill twice.
What is the value of the Chancellor's concession to distressed areas? By the way, despite the strictures the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed on me, when, without his customary courtesy, he refused to give way in the course of an unwarranted attack on me, I am pleased to think that he has adopted one of the suggestions I put forward. He has accepted the suggestion of leaving to the distressed areas two-fifths of the net cost. I would like to ask the Chancellor to put forward a few arguments to support his contention that the local authorities ought still to have some interest in the maintenance of their able-bodied poor. What does he mean by it. What reason is there for local authorities to contribute to the maintenance of the able-bodied poor? Under this Bill the local authorities will not have the slightest control over the spending of the money. Will the Chancellor be good enough to inform us why he laid it down as a principle that it is a good thing for the local authorities still to have some share in the maintenance of the able-bodied poor? I fail to see how he makes out his case.
The local authorities in Great Britain, particularly those in distressed areas, are quite helpless to take any steps to relieve distress in their own districts. They have not the power to come to the help of the able-bodied poor. I submit that it is agreed that the State has a national responsibility towards the unemployed, and it is a proper and reasonable application of that principle to have the whole cost of maintaining the able-bodied poor borne by the State. I do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be so parsimonious. He is making £1,000,000 out of this Bill, according to the Minister of Labour. I should like to put this point to the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour pointed out that a very considerable majority of the unemployed at this moment are receiving insurance and not transitional payments, and he looked to that state of affairs being maintained. That may be true, but I will put this to him—that whilst it is true of the country as a whole it is not true of the second category he mentioned in his speech,
those unemployed persons who are idle as a consequence of the obsolescence of the industry in which they were engaged. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that in the mining industry, the cotton industry and the shipbuilding industry they cannot hope to look forward to the complete employment of their old staffs again. Is it not also true that while the insurance principle may assist the bulk of the men unemployed those who will be chargeable to the Unemployment Assistance Board will be congregated together in the areas where those three industries are carried on? This Bill will, therefore, take away revenue from those areas where revenues are constantly falling as a consequence of the obsolescence of industry.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I do not think that follows. It does not follow that this Bill will take away revenue from those distressed areas.

Mr. BEVAN: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the men who are on transitional payments at the moment belong largely to the industries to which I have referred. I think he will agree that the men who belong to these industries have to be segregated in certain localities, and that, (man for man, the man in insurance benefit gets more than the man on transitional payments. Therefore, it follows that the Chancellor is already saving £6,000,000 under this Financial Resolution by that very principle. How does he save this money? He saves it by the extension of the insurance period. It costs the Insurance Fund roughly that amount to carry the transferred persons. This £6,000,000 which the Chancellor saves is the amount of money that he now has to pay to those persons who, under the provisions of the Bill, will be transferred to the Insurance Fund.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON indicated dissent.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but is it not incontrovertible that the transitional payment man, on the average, get less than the insurance man? Otherwise, what did you want the means test for? When hon. Members shake their heads it simply reveals that either they are intellectually unscrupulous or that they have not followed the provisions of the Bill. That
is the situation. The point that I am striving to make is that, by the provisions of this Financial Resolution, money is gathered up from different parts of the country, from the contributions from the employed, the employers and the State. That money is collected from all over the country, and it is redistributed into areas already comparatively prosperous as compared with other areas.

Mr. NICHOLSON: I think the hon. Member has missed the point of my interruption. As I understand him, he says the provisions of the Bill would lay an extra burden on the distressed areas. I am hoping that he may be able to show that he has some reason for that charge.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am coming to that in a moment. In view of the fact that this carries on the means test, it means that those areas which are most helpless and most distressed are going to receive, in respect of their unemployment, smaller revenues from the community than other more prosperous areas.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the local authorities will suffer, or the people generally?

Mr. BEVAN: I say that the whole of the community will suffer. The community suffers because the revenues are smaller, and the people suffer because their spending power is less.

Mr. NICHOLSON: That does not apply to the distressed areas in particular.

Mr. BEVAN: It has to be remembered that a larger number of these people are congregated in the distressed areas, and they suffer most. Coming to the second point, on which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to a reply, how do the provisions of the Bill make the situation worse? They make it worse because of the fact that we see in Glamorganshire, in Monmouthshire, and until recently in Durham—and it is no doubt true of many parts of the country—that the local authorities and public assistance committees have set themselves up as a buffer for the Minister of Labour. What it does is to universalize the commissioners. If you consider the money saved in Durham by the commissioners in comparison with the public assistance committee, you will see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make money
under the Bill, as against his present position, taking the country as a whole. We have kept up a continual warfare with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour in the last two years in defence of the standards of assessment against their importunities. It goes without saying that the local authorities, because they are getting money from the State in the assessment of transitional payments, have assessed the claims of the family more generously. It is probably true that there are hard-faced representatives in some districts who treat the poor so harshly that they may even find the Chancellor of the Exchequer a good change.

Mr. NICHOLSON: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to make that charge. If he studies the Bill and the present regulations he will find that the Bill gives far more latitude to the commissioners than the present regulations do to those public assistance authorities which are endeavouring to carry out the law, as they are bound to do.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member has the advantage of me, for, as the regulations are not yet made, we do not know what the procedure will be.

Mr. NICHOLSON: The general outlines are known.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member has perhaps information which I have not.

Mr. NICHOLSON: The Bill shows that the future authorities will have more latitude. Anyone can see from that that there is a difference from the present regulations.

Mr. BEVAN: The Bill is simply clouded over. There are one or two instances where, for example, they have to make some allowance for working members of the family, but that has to be done now. Even the Poor Law has to do that. I admit that in theory the Poor Law never ought to do it, but in practice it always does. If the hon. Member shakes his head, he really does not know much about the Poor Law. The argument I have advanced is that these unemployment assistance officers will be "safety first" men. I do not know of any official who has been reprimanded by the Minister of Labour for being too nig-
gardly, but I have known a board of guardians to be reproved for giving too much. The officials who will be appointed under this Bill know that perfectly well. They will all be "safety first" men, and the lowest standard in the country will be the vortex into which all standards will be plunged. That is the ordinary experience of administration, and I am entitled to say so on two grounds—first, the national tendency of administration, and, secondly, the fact that the local authorities' provision will mean that the unemployed poor will be much worse off under the provisions of the Bill than they are at present.
The next point is to pick up the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and ask the Chancellor to reply to it. My hon. and learned Friend made a most interesting reflection when he said that it seemed to him, from the provisions of this Bill, that the Chancellor was deliberately divesting himself of the opportunity, if he wished to take it, of restoring the cuts in his next Budget. That is a most serious charge, so serious, as a matter of fact, that my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) rose in his seat and, in a short but pithy statement, said that that was so grave, that it was such an important position, if true, that some assurance should be given to the House immediately, either that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not so divest himself or that he proposes to incorporate some instrument that leaves it open to him to restore the cuts to the unemployed.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I did not say that it was a grave position. I said that it was such a grave charge that it deserved full refutation by the Government.

Mr. BEVAN: Quite so. It was not a pre-judgment of the issue by the hon. Gentleman. No reply has been made. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the impression, in the course of his speech, that not only was he divesting himself of power to restore cuts to the unemployed, but that he was collecting money from the unemployed in this Bill to give to other people. He said in his speech that if he used the money in this way it might postpone the date at which he would be able to restore the cuts to
others, so we are to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is collecting money from the unemployed in order to give it to someone else. That is a monstrous position. If anybody is entitled to have a restoration of the cuts first, it is the unemployed, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us that he is not going to restore the cuts now because it will make him so poor that he will not be able to restore the other cuts, leads us to assume at once—and unless we get a reassurance from him we shall have to keep on assuming—that he intends either wholly or partially to restore the cuts to everybody but the unemployed man; and that is a monstrous thing. This country, I believe, would never continue to support a Government guilty of such hideous treachery as that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure Members on all sides that that is not in his mind, and I hope he will answer the point made by my hon. and learned Friend and assure us that he will be in a position, despite the provisions of this Bill, to restore the cuts of the unemployed, if he feels himself in a position to do so, when he makes his Budget statement.
I believe that the last statement made by the Chancellor was not so satisfactory to the local authorities as he imagines, and I would like to put it to him once again that in the provisions of this Bill it seems to me he has lost an opportunity of putting himself right with his own people. No one would have taken serious exception to his having put the £115,000,000 of the insurance fund debt on to the National Debt. Nobody would have quarrelled much with him. There may be some financial pedants in some parts of the House who would point out to him that in doing that he was violating all the balance-sheet principles of Gladstone, but he has set Gladstone aside on so many other occasions that he might easily have done it on this occasion. Again, I suggest that it was rather foolish to—

Mr. BUCHANAN: He might have offended Lord Snowden.

Mr. BEVAN: I know that he would not like to do that, but I would point out that high finance is not necessarily arithmetical. Some Chancellors of the Exchequer seem to imagine that if their arithmetic is sound, their finance cannot
be wrong, but I suggest that it would have been better finance for the right hon. Gentleman to have added this debt to the National Debt and distributed the money to the poor, who would start spending it straight away and not save it up. We would thus have set the looms of Lancashire at work on shirts for the miners of South Wales, which would have been a great deal better. This country will ultimately have to come to the position that if it has any money to disperse, it must give it to the spenders and not to the savers. It is no use preserving your bondholders and your comparatively comfortable people. They simply add to the stock of £1,800,000,000 of idle money accumulated in the banks of Great Britain.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Where does the hon. Member get those figures from?

Mr. BEVAN: Those figures are supported by all the proper authorities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask where the £1,800,000,000 happens to be—if the hon. Member has looked at the other side of the balance sheet?

Mr. BEVAN: We know what the other side of the balance sheet is; it is the banks' commitments to its depositors.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is the same side.

Mr. BEVAN: Everybody knows that the banks are getting more and more—

Mr. WILLIAMS: What is the other side?

Mr. BEVAN: I know that the £1,800,000,000 is the expression of increasing liquidity, but I cannot go into that matter now. I am not permitted to do so. because I should be out of order. I do not want to have a discussion about high finance at this time of the morning, though I should not be afraid to have it, because I have listened to many speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have discerned no great financial acumen in them. But my point is that if you have got money at all to disperse, it is good finance to give it to those who will spend it, who will make it go round, who will increase the consumption of consumable goods; and this country will have to come to the position that its real wealth and its real soundness consist in the purchasing power of the poorest part
of the population and not in that of the richest part of the population. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that not only has he lost a good opportunity of making himself rather more popular than he is at the moment with the local authorities and of setting aside the pedantry which has been responsible in the last few years for the decline of this country's trade, but also at the same time of giving some encouragement to the poor people in the distressed districts of Great Britain who are too helpless to look after themselves and who expect from a powerful National Government some other policy than the perpetuation of their miseries and the maintenance of the bondholders' claims.

9.30 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I can quite understand the feeling of many hon. Members of this House that often this Motion is associated with some form of delay, but that is not my object now. I think the time has arrived when we ought to have some statement from the Government of what is going to happen. We have arrived at a very serious situation. We are discussing a Financial Resolution of the most important kind. I do not know of anything more important that we could discuss, and we are discussing it in the small hours of the morning. I think it is very bad business to undertake this work now. The Patronage Secretary may say to me that we could have taken it earlier if the discussion on another Measure had been shortened, but there is a simple reply to that. Even if the discussion of the other Measure had been cut down by eight hours, that would have meant that this Resolution would have been discussed at 12 at night, and I put it to the Committee that a Resolution dealing with unemployment insurance, affecting no fewer than 3,000,000 people—and, with their wives and families, no fewer than 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of the population of this country—should not be taken as a second-rate Measure. It would never have been tolerated by the Conservative party when they were in opposition.
I have had the privilege of sitting in this House and watching many Governments at work, and I say that
the charge is not that any other Bill took up a considerable length of time, but that such an important Resolution as this should have been the first Order of the day and that no other Bill ought to have taken precedence of it. Even with the best will in the world, the other Bill could not have been disposed of before 12 o'clock at night, and any discussion must have come at the most awkward hour of the night. Again, it may be said that we have discussed unemployment insurance already on another occasion, but I have never accepted that argument. I wanted to speak on this Resolution, and all that I discussed was an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A Bevan) on a minor issue.
I would appeal to the Scottish Members not to be unmindful of Scottish interests in this connection. I do not claim this as a sort of super-Scotsman but, for good or ill, I have inherited a tradition that Scottish affairs are treated differently from those of other parts of the country. I am not arguing that the system is good or bad, but merely stating the fact that Scottish Poor Law circumstances have always been a separate compartment from those of any other part of the country, and this issue affects the working of the Scottish Poor Law. I am making no complaint about the Scottish officials. For good or ill, they do their business at Edinburgh at the week-end, so that I make no complaint of their not being here. My charge is not against them. They must transact their business. My charge is that the Government arrange this business when they know the Scottish officers must be absent. Every Scottish Member here knows that the Scottish officers go to Edinburgh at the week-end.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that the Scottish officers waited as long as they could before leaving.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope I shall never be guilty of any unfair reflection on a colleague. The Scottish officers sat there till half-past twelve, and they left at five-past one this morning. They could remain no longer, because they had important business.

Mr. NICHOLSON: My point was that it was because of the delay by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let me repeat that, even with the best will in the world, this Resolution could not have come on until 12 o'clock, which was eight hours before it did come on, and so the Scottish officials could not have been present. Questions affecting the Poor Law in Scotland are raised in this Resolution. In Scotland we have had an age-long practice that every poor person has the right to appeal to the sheriff if he is refused relief. The sheriff is a publicly constituted judge. It was his duty to hear a man's appeal, and if he thought the man was deserving, he could compel the Poor Law authorities to grant him relief. That has been an age-long practice in Scotland. This Resolution affects that practice and interferes with that right. It may be good or bad, but when we are discussing it on the Financial Resolution—because on the Bill we should not be able to make any alteration—it ought to have been made possible for our Scottish officials to be present. I am not in the least joking about this matter. I put this with all the seriousness at my command and I think I know the Scottish Poor Law and unemployment. We are going to discuss these most important matters without a Scottish officer having the opportunity to be present, and that is why I make this Motion to report progress. Again let me emphasise that I make no criticism against any one of the Scottish Departments. I have always found them ready, willing, and anxious to be present in Parliament, but to-day the force of circumstances compels them to be away, and we are here discussing a Measure that affects them in the most vital fashion. If there were no other reason than that, it would be sufficient to urge that the Patronage Secretary should postpone this discussion.
The present House of Commons is constituted in a way that few Houses have been constituted in the past. The Government have an overwhelming majority. The Opposition, even all the elements combined, is small. In the conduct of Parliamentary business, particularly on Unemployment Insurance, an Opposition is as vital to this House as supporters of the Government. I think I can claim that I have consistently in this House, together with other Members in Opposition, stated points of view that the Government had not understood
before. It might have been possible, if we had been numbering hundreds, to have had a day for this discussion. But when you have only a few Members, it is not treating the Opposition with respect, fairness, or sportsmanship to take a Measure of this kind at this hour. I have been out of this Chamber only 45 minutes, or an hour at the most, since 3 o'clock yesterday. I have had a telegram from my native city—the second city in Britain, a city with well over a million of population, four times that of Newfoundland—expressing their complete dissatisfaction with this financial Resolution. It is signed by the Provost of the town, a Conservative. I say that to discuss that Measure at this time is not conducive to the best interests of the people. I see the Prime Minister. He has not sat through the night. I do not complain of that. He has other duties that possibly demanded freshness of mind and clarity of judgment. But I do say that it might have been well for him to have come here this morning, when we were discussing such a deep human problem, and asked the Government at least to reconsider the matter. I have seen the Minister of Labour reflected on once or twice. I know he will deny it, because of his super loyalty to his colleagues. When they were globetrotting in various parts of the world he was the one Minister left at home, because he was to decent and dignified to take part in the mad scramble. To-day, if he had been an aggressive Minister, this Order would have been first. It is not treating your Minister of Labour fairly.
Imagine the spectacle that we see of a Minister of Labour sitting the whole night through, not knowing at what hour this Bill would come on, playing second fiddle to the Dominions Secretary. Here is Newfoundland, with 200,000 of a population, the first Order on the Paper. The second business is Unemployment Insurance, for the whole of Scotland, and a Cabinet Minister and his Under-Secretary sit the night through, while another Cabinet Minister tinkers with time after he has wasted time, because if there was a delay it was not here. Every acknowledged Parliamentarian in the House almost felt like coming down and turning him out in order that we could get on with business. We had another Minister occupying his time waiting. I remember
the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir Robert Home) declining the Ministry of Labour because it was not important enough. I say that it is almost the most important office of the Crown. None is more honourable, and I say that to put the position in that way is a grave reflection. I appeal to Members of this House to support the postponement of discussion on the Financial Resolution on Unemployment Insurance at this time, with a Minister ill-equipped for the discussion, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer—just imagine the arrangement, compelling even the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sit the night through—

Mr. COCKS: Serve him right!

Mr. BUCHANAN: It may be, but look at the reflection—the Dominions Secretary in bed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer up all night. If it were not for the tragic issues lying behind it, it would be a joke. It may be that there will be a slight delay in connection with this Financial Resolution, but I cannot see that there is any great strength in that objection. What issue is there which is in greater need of discussion than this issue? A day longer will not matter very much. We are to give a day to the consideration of greyhound racing. Surely we could devote one of those days which are available for other subjects, to this important question. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate the reasons I am giving and that the Debate on the main Resolution will not be closured. A number of us want to raise serious issues on it, and I would ask him to accept the Motion to Report Progress, in the interests of all concerned and, above all, in his own interests, having regard to the future conduct of Parliamentary business.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to make as to the Government's intentions?

9.51 a.m.

Captain MARGESSON: The few remarks which I propose to address to the Committee must necessarily be to the same effect as those which I made last night at ten minutes past eleven o'clock and again this morning at half-past five o'clock. Now, at ten minutes to ten o'clock I repeat that the Government are
going to carry out the programme to which they set their hands at a quarter to four yesterday afternoon. There are hon. Friends of mine behind me who have sat here all through the night waiting for a chance to make their observations on this subject and we have no intention now of abandoning the task to which we have applied ourselves.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke about this Resolution having been put down as second Order. Let me remind him that the original Resolution was put down as the first Order on Monday, and that the whole of that day was given to the discussion of the Resolution in Committee. When the programme of business for Monday was announced and the Government intimated that they were giving one day to the Financial Resolution in Committee, no complaint was made either from the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway or the hon. Gentlemen opposite me, through the usual channels. One day for the discussion of the Resolution in Committee was apparently regarded as satisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then the Government made a concession which was welcomed in every quarter of the House, but owing to the procedure under which we work it was not possible there and then to amend the Financial Resolution so as to embody that concession. The Government were, therefore, forced to withdraw the original Financial Resolution and to submit the Resolution which now appears on the Paper. Thus, the whole of this Resolution has already been discussed with the exception of the alteration to which I have referred. The only addition to the original Resolution is that which embodies the concession made by the Government. If it is complained that this Resolution is being taken at five minutes to ten in the morning, after an all-night sitting, I say frankly that had the Opposition desired to have it taken at a more reasonable hour, the matter lay in their own hands.

Mr. COCKS: No.

9.53 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should take that attitude. I can understand why he required to get the Newfoundland Bill through the stage which has just been completed, but he has come to us with an intimation that a
time-table is to be applied to the further stages of the Unemployment Bill. That means force. The Government are suspending the ordinary Parliamentary procedure in order to force that Measure through in the minimum of time. But, not content with the guillotine which is to be set up next week, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now says "I am going to force through this Financial Resolution." I suggest to him that this will create in the minds of the unemployed and of the working class generally a conception that the Government in their treatment of the unemployed are prepared to be quite ruthless and to deny, for the discussion of this subject, the ordinary facilities which would be granted for the discussion of any other subject.
The Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to throw the responsibility on the Opposition. We cannot take it. It is childish for the leaders of a Government supported by 500 members to complain about the Opposition of a handful being so strong that they have to use brutal methods. It is puerile to argue in that way. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have kept us all night."] I have kept you all night! Just imagine—this great strong giant of a politician, against those 500 Members with their millions of votes and he compels them to bow to a mere handful. It seems childish in the extreme. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury knows that there is nobody who has not co-operated with him in the course of this Parliament.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Never has a man had it made easier for him.

Mr. MAXTON: He has been treated with courtesy, fair play and consideration. Never have I known a Parliament in which Government business has been carried through at the rate and in the time desired by the Parliamentary Secretary, to such an extent as in this Parliament. Now when we come to a Measure, which, as he knows, enlists the interests and sympathy of hon. Members on this side as no other question does, he says: "You may show consideration and courtesy to me in the things about which I am concerned, but in the things about which you are concerned, I will use the strong hand". That is what he is saying to the Opposition to-day. I
cannot imagine anyone who could have been more genial and helpful than the Chief Whip of the Opposition in his arrangements with the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Leader of the Opposition takes a definite pride in not delaying business, but he would have insisted, had he been here, that the facilities that the Opposition require should not be hampered in any way, and that the subject should only be discussed under conditions which would make proper, thorough and adequate discussion possible, and these considerations do not exist this morning. It is a long time now since I have found that I am in conflict with the order of this House, but the attitude taken up by the Government to-day touches me in a way that makes me feel that respect for the order and decencies of the House is not responded to, and that turmoil, disturbance, obstruction, Parliamentary rudeness and a refusal to co-operate in any way would be treated with greater respect than the methods which have been consistently adopted by all sections of the Opposition. I make my protest, and I say definitely that in the future my attitude towards proposals about business will be entirely different, because we regard ourselves as entitled to the utmost consideration of this Measure. We believe that the subject is entitled to the utmost consideration.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who has the whole of the next Session in front of him to put through this Measure, is going to impose by force a time-table. I do not know how many days he is going to put into it. It must be anything from 10 to 30. If he had 30 in his mind, it would be in his favour to reduce it to 29. If he had 20 in his mind, it would be in his favour to reduce it to 19, and the Opposition could not prevent him. There is nothing in this move this morning except the desire to teach the Opposition the lesson that in this Parliament, whatever we do, we must not oppose, or else the mailed fist will be brought down on top of us and we shall be made to suffer in our bodies for any signs of opposition to His Majesty's Government. It is shocking and disgraceful. I will consult with my hon. Friends on the future stages of the Bill as to how best we can oppose it, and, if our attitude to the whole proceedings of
the House is changed, the Parliamentary Secretary can know where the responsibility rests.

10.3 a.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Parliamentary Secretary puts all the blame on the Opposition for the length of this sitting. He was warned quite clearly. When I asked at Question Time what the business was, it was obvious that it would be very difficult to bring it on at a reasonable time. Extremely larger principles were raised, both financial and constitutional, and the replies that were given on various Amendments did not tend to shorten the proceedings. One can never foretell accurately how a Debate will go, but it became obvious very soon yesterday that, if this discussion were to come on at all yesterday, it would come on at a very untimely period in the small hours. The Parliamentary Secretary has always taken the line that this amended financial Resolution was not very important. We never took that view at all.

Captain MARGESSON: I never said it was of no importance. One day was allotted to it, and I had no complaint that that was insufficient. The next Resolution is partly the same except for the addition of the concession.

Mr. ATTLEE: When a concession of that kind is made it changes the whole course of the Debate. What happened was that it had to be postponed. The Government had to move, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair." That created an entirely different position. The Government put down two first-class Measures for one day and the Opposition was within its rights in protesting.
The Opposition is very small in numbers but its duty is clear. It is to see that all matters that come before the House are fully discussed at times when Members can be here, and when they are fresh. The business of the House is done by a comparatively small proportion, and with an extraordinary small attendance of, Members on the other side. That does not mean that it can be conveniently put down just because the Parliamentary Secretary has five relays of Members. That is not the right way of running the business of the House. We have never
taken up the line of mere obstruction for obstruction's sake. We have not objected to any reasonable arrangement, because this House has to do its work, and, when we have a majority we shall expect that the House will do it; but we shall say that the minority shall have its rights as well as its duties. By far the best thing on this occasion would be to accept this Motion and have a proper discussion of the matter one day next week.

10.8 a.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I do not sympathise with hon. Members who have spoken with such indignation. I have listened to the Debates all yesterday afternoon and through the night, and they knew as well as we did what was in store. Had they had any real desire to get this Money Resolution they would have cut a great deal of their talk out, and we could have reached the Resolution at a reasonable hour. I have risen in order to say a word with regard to the Money Resolution itself.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am not sure whether the hon. Member exactly understands the position at the moment. It is that the question before the Committee is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Up to the present point his remarks have been in Order on that Motion, but he will understand that he cannot discuss the Resolution.

10.9 a.m.

Mr. COCKS: I do not want to indulge in any personal discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary, for whom I have a great personal admiration. He does his work extremely well. But we have had several discussions on motions to report Progress, and the; decision in each case has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary and not by the Leader of the House. There is a leader of the House somewhere. I have never been quite sure in my mind whether he is the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council—I think the latter, because he is more often here. I think it is not quite treating the Committee with courtesy with which it should be treated that the Leader of the House should be continually absent in the course of a prolonged debate. When the Leader of the Opposition or the party below the Gangway asks for a concession in this way,
very often the Leader of the House gives way. Here, apparently, orders have been given. The Parliamentary Secretary, with all his good qualities, is not a Member of the Cabinet, and is not the Leader of the House. He says, I will not give way a single jot or tittle on what I said many hours ago. I think it is due to the Committee that the Leader of the House should be sent for. He will probably give the same decision as the Parliamentary Secretary has given, but I think the Lord President or the Prime Minister, or whoever is the Leader of the House, should come and give a decision, instead of allowing it to be given by the Parliamentary Secretary.

10.12 a.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) complained about the time that has been occupied. I notice that he and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—on the last Measure, about which they announced that they did not care a brass farthing—spoke 17 times for two hours and 54 minutes.

Mr. MAXTON rose—

Wing-Commander JAMES: I will not give way.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is especially attacked or referred to, I should, of course, give him an opportunity at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. MAXTON: I will not allow the hon. and Gallant Gentleman to make a complete misrepresentation of my attitude towards the last Measure. I did not make any suggestion that I did not care a brass farthing about it. I was deeply concerned about it. I said, about one incidental thing, that I did not care a brass farthing, but on the Newfoundland Bill I was keenly concerned, and I said so.

Wing-Commander JAMES: The hon. Member said that about the British Empire he did not care a brass farthing. Then he and the hon. Member for Gorbals spoke 17 times for two hours and 54 minutes.

10.16 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands my complaint. It is that important Government business
is being placed before us when we are not in a condition to discuss it adequately, when only a quarter of the Government supporters are present, and when there is a whole Session available during which the Government have the ordering of the time. They are doing this now, not for the sake of getting good legislation, but in order to wreak their spite on me. That is a fine spirit for the Government of the country—to get their own back. Can anyone understand a more shocking motive—to punish two or three men? We are considering important Governmental business, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman sees nothing in it but a way of getting his own back on me. It is disgraceful and contemptible. He says I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals occupied two hours and 54 minutes. I imagined that it was a whole lot more. There will be other Measures before the House when we shall occupy a great deal more time. I will use every minute I can on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. Surely the Government have some regard for the House of Commons and for their legislation, and want it discussed under decent conditions. There is nothing clever or strong about this.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to address the House twice on the same question, except for the purpose of giving a personal explanation?

The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee.

10.17 a.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I gather now, from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, that Conservative Members only come here in sufficient numbers to defeat the Opposition, and not for the purpose of discussing the business that we are assembled to discuss in this House. Throughout the Debate on the Financial Resolution, Conservative Members have largely been absent except when their own stars have been talking, and then they packed the House. The Parliamentary Secretary has completely misrepresented the position. Everyone who has attended to business knows very well that the discussion on Monday did not receive proper attention from the Front Bench. We left the general discussion without any reply from the Front
Bench, and we went to the Amendment, because it was understood that the Resolution was going to be re-committed. The reason why the Resolution could not be properly concluded that night was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted himself to amend it. It is absolutely unreasonable that the Opposition should have to sacrifice its proper opportunities for discussion to meet the convenience of the Government. It is the Government that had to withdraw the Resolution and not the Opposition. The Resolution has been before the House on two days when no one knew what its final form was going to be, because all the time the Chancellor was conducting negotiations with outside people. In order to discuss Parliamentary business properly, the final form of the Resolution ought to have been on the Order Paper from the beginning. The Resolution has been withdrawn and reprinted and now there is complaint because we want to discuss an important Measure of that kind at some time earlier than midnight.
The right hon. Gentleman has been pointing out that the Committee stage of the Bill was important enough to have occupied the Committee up to midnight. The Dominions Secretary himself said: "I suppose I can have the Bill by midnight." At that time there was no acrimony in the Chamber. It was a piece of ordinary legislation, and the Minister in charge expected to be on it up to midnight. From midnight on was not a proper time to take the Financial Resolution of an important Measure like this, because, once the Financial Resolution leaves this Chamber, we are gravely curtailed on the Bill itself. This is an extraordinary Bill. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last half-century, and this Resolution gravely limits the opportunities for discussion on the Bill itself.
The Parliamentary Secretary must pay some attention to what we are saying in this regard. Since the beginning of this Parliament the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had an El Dorado compared with what we had in the last Parliament, or what previous Tory Governments have had. Here is a Parliament with one of the smallest oppositions in history, and one of the largest majorities. It came into power
in circumstances of the greatest possible acrimony and bitterness. Nevertheless, for two years we have been able to transact business in a businesslike way without any all-night sitting, although there have been countless occasions when we could have kept the House up all-night if we had desired to do so. Like a bolt from the blue the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that it is intended to put the Guillotine on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. That is a monstrous proposition. Other Governments have at least allowed Bills to proceed a certain way in Committee, to find out how things were going on, but here is the Parliamentary Secretary, after two years of harmonious co-operation in the organisation of the House's time-table, springing the Guillotine on the Opposition for the most important Measure that we shall have to discuss. It is monstrous.

The CHAIRMAN: May I invite the hon. Member to come back to the Motion?

Mr. BEVAN: One of the causes of the feeling that has sprung up is the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intends to put the guillotine on, and we say that that is a violation of good manners. It will leave a bad taste in the mouths of people outside the House that it has been found necessary to take advantage of 30 people at half-past 10 in the morning to discuss the business of millions of our fellow-citizens, and the conclusion will be that the Conservative majority is so frivolous that it cannot be trusted with the well-being of the people.

10.25 a.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I am one of those who have sat throughout the night with the object of making some contribution to the Debate on this Financial Resolution. I was in the House at half-past nine yesterday morning, I have not set my feet outside the precincts since half-past two yesterday, afternoon, and I have not had a meal since eight o'clock last night. I had hoped to travel over-night to the North. It is now clear that the whole of my time has been wasted, and that I shall be prevented from discussing important business in the North of England as I had intended. I have sat here with
the object of making some humble contribution to the debate, and, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the complaint made by hon. Members opposite, the only result of these interminable discussions has been to prevent me from taking part in the debate on the Financial Resolution.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
 [10.26 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Penny, Sir George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Petherick, M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Goff, Sir Park
Pickering, Ernest H.


Balniel, Lord
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Graves, Marjorie
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bateman, A. L.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Batterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Robinson, John Roland


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hors-Belisha, Leslie
Ross, Ronald D.


Borodale, Viscount.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Scone, Lord


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Selley, Harry R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leckie, J. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Storey, Samuel


Christie, James Archibald
Lewis, Oswald
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooke, Douglas
Liewellin, Major John J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tate, Mavis Constance




Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
McKeag, William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKie, John Hamilton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Macmillan. Maurice Harold
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dickie, John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Donner, P. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.Colonel John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Weymouth, Viscount


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Elmley, Viscount
Moreing, Adrian C.
Womersley, Walter James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)



Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Commander Southby.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Nunn, William





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield. John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert



Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dagger, George
McGovern, John
Mr. Groves and Mr. John.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Division No. 53.]
AYES
 [10.35 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Daggar, George

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 26.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 135.

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lojan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, Jamet
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. McGovern and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Pickering, Ernest H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Goff, Sir Park
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Balniel, Lord
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Graves, Marjorie
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Bateman, A. L.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Robinson, John Roland


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsmih, C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roes, Ronald D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Borodale, Viscount.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bostom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Scone, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Selley, Harry R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Leckie, J. A.
Storey, Samuel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lewis, Oswald
Strauss, Edward A.


Christie, James Archibald
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colman, N. C. D.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
McKeag, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
McKie, John Hamilton
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dickie, John P.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Weymouth, Viscount


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Eastwood, John Francis
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Elmley, Viscount
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Womersley, Walter James


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fox, Sir Gifford
Nunn, William
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.

Original Question again proposed.

10.43 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is about an hour and a quarter since the last speech on the main question was made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that I have made the hon. and gallant Member understand that I am calling him to speak on the Resolution without accepting his Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that: I do not propose to repeat or recapitalate the hon. Member's tremendous wanderings over whole field of unemploy-
ment, but I should like to echo one thing he said. It is rather a pity that none of the Ministers have taken up the threads of the Debate of last Monday by answering one or two of the questions which were then left in the day to what I considered was a very important point in regard to the Resolution. I am not going to wander over the field of unemployment, because we shall have other opportunities of doing that, but I want to deal with one specific point, and that is the financial powers that will be given away by this House if we pass this Resolution. The Resolution states that certain moneys can be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Out of moneys provided by Parliament sums
can be paid to meet any increase attributable to the passing of Part I. The Committee in order to keep the Insurance Fund solvent, is to be given certain powers over benefits, contributions and a number of other details which are to be found in the schedule.
Under the Act of 1930 we have this curious result that, automatically, the Exchequer pays one-half of the aggregate contributions of the employer and the employed. Therefore, if the Statutory Committee were to recommend an increase in the contributions in order to render the Fund solvent, automatically there would be an increase in the charge on the Exchequer, owing to the meaning which is now laid on the Act of 1929. It is provided that the Statutory Committee can make their recommendations in the form of Draft Orders, which may be approved or not by the Minister. Those orders then have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament, without Amendment. This is really the position, that the Statutory Committee might think that it is necessary to increase the contribution and it could present to the Minister a Draft Order to this House, instead of the usual financial procedure which hitherto would have been the case, and in a Bill founded on the Money Resolution we should find ourselves approving a considerably increased charge on the Exchequer, after having had only one opportunity of debate and no opportunity of Amendment.
That is a very serious blemish on this Financial Resolution. No doubt it is intended to be the case, although these changes are hidden away in a mass of very technical language. That could not have been done by accident; it must have been done deliberately. Therefore, the Government wish to deprive the House of its powers and are going in the face of recent criticism, for example, the criticism of the Committee which dealt with Ministerial powers. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that there is ample precedent for this procedure in the principal Act, because the Act of 1920 did not allow that the Minister could, by Order, extend the field of unemployment insurance to certain occupations which were then excepted. The Act certainly says that, but the Minister has never done it. Successive Ministers of all parties may have thought that that was an extension which it was not right
to adopt in that manner. It also remains the fact that if Ministers were naughty boys in 1920 there is no reason why they should be the same in 1933. It is no excuse for anyone to say that because something wrong was done years ago that that is a precedent for doing something which many of us in this House consider is the wrong way of tackling the problem.
It would be beneficial to the House to know exactly what has prompted Ministers to ask, under this Resolution for such a very great amount of power and such a great divergence from the ordinary financial procedure of this House. If we in this House do not look after the methods by which Governments can obtain powers of taxation, even if they are obtained through the back door, the time will come when other Governments of other parties may use the same back door. It is most deplorable that a Government at this time of the day—I do not mean at this time of the morning but at this period of the day—should introduce into a Financial Resolution such a novel procedure. The whole Committee will await with interest the explanation which some Minister may have to give on this point.

10.50 a.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I should like at once to make some reply to the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised upon the Motion, a point which is contained in the Amendment which he had put down but which, I understand, will not now be moved. My hon. and gallant Friend is always a very vigilant guardian of the privileges of the House, and I think he has done good service in bringing up for discussion a point of this kind, as to which I hope that I shall be able to make a perfectly good defence. It is a matter very properly to be discussed in a Bill of this sort. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to suggest that this provision is being introduced by the back door. He does not intend to suggest that it is deliberately concealed in the Financial Resolution. The procedure was quite deliberate, as he rightly anticipated, and in order to carry it out we had to adopt the draftsman's method of putting it into the Financial Resolution.
My hon. and gallant Friend asks why it is that we come before the Committee
and request that special powers may be delegated to the Minister. The first answer to that is that here we are following the recommendation of the Royal Commission, on page 165 of their Report, in which they say:
In our view the Minister should have power, subject to the approval of Parliament, to make such changes as are necessary, without having to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts.
In other words the Commission believed that changes in the Insurance Acts were required so frequently in order to meet changing conditions that greater elasticity ought to be provided than the ordinary course of introducing a new Bill every time we wanted to make a change which in many cases might be only of a minor character. The recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to the Statutory Committee and the extension of functions which the Royal Commission thought ought to be given to that body are set forth in the Report as follows:
Such a body should be charged with the statutory duty of

(a) Presenting an annual report to the Minister and to Parliament; and
(b) Making recommendations to the Minister and Parliament with regard to changes in the rates of contributions."

Various other things are also specified. It will be seen, therefore, that we are acting strictly in accordance with the Royal Commission in the procedure we have adopted. If this was an, entirely new procedure and there was no precedent for it, then I think the House might be more anxious about it, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated, there is precedent in the main Act itself, in the Act of 1920. Not only under that Act has the Minister power in Section 4 to introduce whole new industries into insurance, with a corresponding contribution from the Exchequer, but there are other Sections, namely, Sections 15 and 16, under which the Minister has power to increase the rates of contribution of employers and employed. Any increase in the rates of contribution of employers or employed automatically affects the contribution from the Exchequer which, under the Acts, has to be one-half of the combined contribution of employers and employed. There we have an exact analogy of the procedure which we are adopting here. The Exchequer contribution can, of
course, only be increased pari passu with the contributions of the employer and the employed. An alteration cannot be made in the procedure which is envisaged in the Financial Resolution without the approval of the House, and the ordinary Financial Resolution is only abrogated if an Order is made upon the recommendation of the Commission.
Hon. Members may think that we are going too far and that it may be desirable to move an Amendment in Committee, but I would point out the very strong view that was held by the Royal Commission, that the method of governing these changes in the Insurance Acts by the ordinary procedure was too cumbersome, too slow, too rigid for practical effect, and they very strongly held the view that it was necessary to find a more flexible method. In face of the precedent which already existed in the main Act, I have no doubt they recommended the procedure which we have adopted. With that explanation I hope that, even if I have not convinced my hon. and gallant Friend, I have shown him that there is good reason for the course that we have taken.

10.57 a.m.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: I apologise to the Committee for my intervention in the debate at this juncture, but I have been sitting here since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, and I know perfectly well that other hon. Members who have also been here for so long a time are desirous of speaking on the Resolution. I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to explain the reason for my intervention. My reason is this, that I intend to go into the Lobby against the Government on this Financial Resolution, and I want to give the reasons why I am doing so. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many hon. Members, the Government have failed to implement the pledge given by the Minister of Health on the 12th April last, to the effect that the Government would take over the additional responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed. In order to prove to the Committee that the pledge was given, I will read from the speech of the Minister on that date. He used these words:
One of the bases of this redistribution of responsibility between local authorities and the central Government will be that the central Government shall accept
responsibility, both administrative and financial, for assisting all the able-bodied unemployed who need assistance. The acceptance of this responsibility by the central Government will necessitate the readjustment of the present block grant paid to the local authorities by the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1933; col. 2607, Vol. 276.]
My interpretation of the word 're-adjustment" is this, that the Government would take over the full financial responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed and that that portion of the block grant due to the unemployed weighting factor would be refunded by the State. Now I know that that is not the case.
Instead of the Government supplying the whole of the money for the able-bodied poor the local authorities will only receive, previous to last Monday night, an amount of £2,600,000. I will examine what the £2,600,000 really amounts to when "we come down to brass tacks." In the first place, £600,000 of that amount is allocated to Scotland, leaving £2,000,000. From that amount two sums are to be deducted, namely, £150,000 for certain administrative expenses and £250,000 representing the cost to local authorities of juvenile trade centres. That brings the new figure down to £1,600,000. There is not to be a recurrence of the temporary grant given to distressed areas this year, so that on a comparable basis the local authorities this year receive £1,600,000 as against £450,000 last-year, and therefore, the net relief to local authorities amounts to no more than £1,150,000. This supposed generosity is not sufficient for me, and it is treatment which I did not expect, particularly when I know that my city of Salford, with the partial relief granted by the Government, will still have to pay £30,000 more than it paid in 1930.
I have another complaint against the Government in regard to the Bill. Some little time ago I propounded on the floor of this House a system for the equalisation of the rate poundage for assistance throughout the country, similar to that which obtains in London county boroughs. I was informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that that policy was not acceptable to the Government, because it cut across a cardinal principle of local government, it divorced the area of chargeability from the area of responsibility. But what do we find in this Bill? We find that the Government have gone round the whole
circle, and that as regards the present cost of the able-bodied poor, the local authorities have 60 per cent. of the amount to find while they have no say at all as to how the money is to be spent. I wonder whether the Government really think that, because they have not taken over the whole of the responsibility for the able-bodied poor, they are not going to lose support in the better off areas. If that is their intention or view there is one thing which I can certainly tell them: by their failure to take over the whole responsibility of the able-bodied poor they will lose a great deal more support in the industrial areas. I regard the Unemployment Bill as an admirable Bill with the exception of the financial part, but as I have been sent to this House to watch and to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers of Salford, I find myself reluctantly compelled to go into the Lobby against the Government on the Financial Resolution.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. Morris). He belongs to the opposite Party as a rule, but on this occasion he feels so strongly that he will go into the Lobby against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in explaining the additional grant, stated that the reason why he did not go the whole of the way was because he did not think that the local authorities had a right to dissociate themselves entirely from the relief of the able-bodied unemployed. He could not go the whole way because of that. He gives away the principle yet is afraid to give the whole of the money for the purpose. The Unemployment Assistance Board defined in the Fifth Schedule of the Unemployment Bill, which states that the money shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, which means that it is entirely outside the purview of Parliament. It will mean that the Unemployment Assistance Board, whatever they do, will not be subject to the will of Parliament. When we discussed this matter on the last occasion the Financial Secretary tried to clear up the point. He stated in his speech that they would not be able to deal with them, but he went on to say:
The object which the Government have in view is to impress upon the nation that
the board is not a servant of the Ministry of Labour, but enjoys an absolutely independent status."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1933; col. 162, Vol. 284.]
Judging from that, it means that they will not be subject to any criticism at all in respect of whatever work they may do in dealing with Part II of the Act. The men and women under Part II are just the same as other unemployed people, but they are to be cut away and made subject to an independent body about whose actions we cannot say anything. He went on to say that that is a distinction which they will enjoy in common with many other boards, and he mentioned the Charity Commission, the Civil Service Commission and a host of others, as occupying the position of not being subject to criticism, as they ought to be, by Members of Parliament. We are giving assistance from the State for the able-bodied unemployed who do not come under statutory benefits, yet we shall not be able to criticise anybody's work. Previously the local authorities have had charge of them, and if they have not dealt with them in a proper way we have been able to make complaint. On many occasions we have been able to get redress. Now we are altering the whole tenor of the position, and putting these men and women, because they have not been able to get stamps through lack of employment, under other people. We are driving from our control a large body of men and women who have a right to expect that any grievances which they may have shall be dealt with by Parliament, but that will not be the case under the Bill.
Another point to which I wish to refer is one relating to the amount of money we shall be paying under Part I of the Bill. The Financial Resolution tells us that if the sum falls short, the Fund will be lent money for the time being until it recovers itself. We shall have to pay back, according to the latest figures, £112,000.000. This is to be amortised, and the debt, including interest at a general rate of 3½ per cent., will be spread over a period of 40 years. This gives the figure of £220,000,000 which we shall have to pay back. Surely we should have expected, after all the talk last night about looking after Newfoundland and giving sums of money for that purpose, that we
should have helped our people at home out of their difficulties. They are to be saddled with this Fund, from which it will take them 40 years to extricate themselves. I have a list of the distressed areas. The amount of money which they have had this year is £440,000, to which will be added about £300,000, or an increase of 68 per cent. Do I take it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the distressed areas will receive the grant in the same ratio as before—assuming that I am right in my figures of £300,000 and £440,000? It is rather a subtle point, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether the money is to be given in exactly the same ratio as they received the £440,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has not quite understood the arrangements. The provisional grant comes to an end at the end of the financial year. The concession which I announced was a concession upon the amount of contribution which the local authority will be asked to pay when the present system comes to an end altogether and the new Unemployment Assistance Board has to function. So that the two operations are not simultaneous; the one follows the other.

Mr. TINKER: I referred to the £440,000. The grant of money announced on Monday last is £300,000 in place of the £440,000. Is that the point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of £440,000 of which the hon. Member speaks was the sum provisionally assigned to the distressed areas in England and Wales in advance of the new scheme, but that was a provisional grant. When the present arrangements come to an end, they will be succeeded by a permanent or semi-permanent scheme, which lasts for a period of years, in which local authorities are relieved of 40 per cent. of the cost to them of the services transferred. In addition to that, I made this special concession to distressed areas. It is the one embodied in the last few words in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. TINKER: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to explain the position to me. I have a list here stating the places which have received the money, and I will give one or two
instances. Barnsley receives £3,861, St. Helens £4,375, and Sheffield £58,533. That is out of the grant of £440,000. They are to get 68 per cent. now, and if the amount is wiped out, will they get the same proportion as is represented by the £440,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They cannot possibly get less than they are getting now.

Mr. TINKER: At least it will be made up to the amount which they are getting now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It cannot be less.

Mr. TINKER: I will try to examine the figures a little later on.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. McKEAG: The major part of this discussion has centered on the distressed areas, and at the outset I should like to make my position clear by expressing profound dissatisfaction at the failure of the Government to accept the whole of the financial burden for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed. It seems to be idle to talk about accepting financial responsibility if you are not going to accept the financial burden. Much has been said about the breach of faith of the Government in this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. J. Morris) also referred to it a few minutes ago. I admit at once that the Government have been able to extricate themselves very dexterously and very skilfully from the charge which has been preferred against them in this connection. I do not think, however, that that sufficiently disposes of the matter. I do not think the Government are entitled to don the white raiment of unsullied purity, or to adopt an air of injured innocence.
Whatever may have been the intentions of the Government, camouflaged by the skilful wording of the Resolution, there is not a shadow of doubt but that the great majority of hon. Members who were interested in this matter and took part in the discussions, believed that the Government at long last were accepting the financial burden of maintaining the able-bodied unemployed, and that the able-bodied unemployed were to be a national charge instead of a local charge.
What is more, the Government deliberately—I use the expression advisedly and with a sense of responsibility—permitted hon. Members to cherish that feeling. Take my own case. I took part in the Debate in this House on 6th July last, and I do not think I can do better, as an illustration of my point, than to quote the last two sentences of the speech which I delivered then. After having given details of the terrible financial situation in which my constituency was placed I said this:
The position existing in Durham County today is no mere mushroom growth of the last year or two; indeed the depression there has extended over many years, and it would be sheer hypocrisy of me to stand here and suggest for a moment that I am satisfied. The only crumb of comfort that I can obtain is from the assurance that in this Session this Bill will be introduced whereby the whole of the burden of the able-bodied unemployed will be taken by the State and not cast on the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1933; col. 597, Vol. 280.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is that quoted for the purpose of influencing the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to vote against the Government?

Mr. McKEAG: I am hoping that on this matter the hon. Member for Bridgeton will go into the Lobby with me against the Government on this Financial Resolution. I trust that that is not the expression of a merely pious hope. That quotation from my speech was a very clear statement of what I believed the Government intended to do. In consequence of that feeling I went into the Government Lobby and voted for the Government against the Labour Motion of Censure. When I made that statement the Government spokesmen on the Front Bench heard what I said. It must have been known to them that I was wrong in the belief that I had in my mind, and I submit that when the Government spokesmen heard my statement and knew that that erroneous impression was in my mind, they should immediately have corrected it. Much has been said about the Government's breach of faith. All that I am trying to do is to give chapter and verse and to show the reason why that wrong impression prevailed among hon. Members who have supported the plea of the distressed areas. At the very least, although the spokesmen of the Government did not choose to correct me, the wrong impression
should have been cleared up by the Minister who wound up the Debate for the Government, and he should have stated that hon. Members were labouring under a wrong impression. Hon. Members should not have been permitted to walk into the Lobby supporting the Government on that occasion and at the same time living in a fool's paradise. There are many hon. Members from the distressed areas who had the same impression as myself. It is perfectly clear, and I say it deliberately, that the Government permitted hon. Members to carry that wrong impression in their minds. There is in the law a Latin maxim, uberrima fides —there should be a full disclosure of all sides. That maxim might very properly have been more closely observed by Government spokesmen in this connection.
Much has been said about the concession which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate the other night. Let me show in a few words how it affects the county of Durham and how negligible it really is. In 1931 the cost of public assistance in Durham County was £920,667. In 1932 the cost had risen to £1,304,428, an increase of no less than £384,239. Under this Scheme Durham County is to receive in the first place £110,000, and it is to receive further assistance under the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounting to £33,000, making a total of £143,000. The position, therefore, is that after taking into account the total assistance given under the Bill and the additional concession, Durham County will be £241,239 worse off than it was in 1931. The concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night will amount to a rate of 2¾ d. in a total rate of approximately 17s. I describe that as a mere bagatelle. Can it be wondered at that I find it impossible to welcome these proposals with shouts of joy or with hallelujahs? Only the other day the President of the Board of Trade, on a visit to Tyneside, said that the northeast was the most hard-pressed area that he knew. I only wish that some of the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the north-east and its difficulties might percolate through to other Members of the Government. If that were possible the problems of the north-east might not be viewed by them under what I can only
describe as the myopic influence of their south-country complex, and probably the distressed areas might receive that additional consideration without which it will be difficult for them to survive.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. MCGOVERN: I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the financial arrangements contained in this Resolution. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has noted that of the four speeches already delivered not one has been in approval of the Resolution, and that two have been made by Government supporters, who have taken their courage in their hands and declared their willingness to vote against the Government, believing that these financial provisions are niggardly and inadequate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been taking great credit to himself for bringing a measure of relief to the distressed areas—relief which those areas do not agree with him that they are getting. It is rather a strange commentary that during the whole of last night we sat here making provision for financial assistance to Newfoundland. We did not single out any one area in Newfoundland or any special section of the people there to be immune from relief. Yet in this Resolution we are asking that the distressed areas in this country shall bear a large share of the burden of providing for the able-bodied unemployed in those areas.
I want to express our antagonism to these provisions in this way. So far as we in Glasgow are concerned, we want it to be noted that while there has been a measure of satisfaction in certain parts of the country that employment has been found for more people during the last few months, in Glasgow, and in Scotland generally, the figures of unemployment have been steadily on the increase. Glasgow becomes a more distressed area as time goes on, and the burdens which are being imposed upon shoulders that are quite unable to bear additional burdens are certainly not to the credit of the Government. We find that areas which could bear a larger portion of the burden of unemployment are being relieved to a considerable extent, that areas which are bearing the lowest Poor Law and able-bodied assistance rates are more able to bear the burden than distressed areas, upon which those burdens are being im-
posed. It means the curtailing of essential social services, and in Glasgow we have been asked as its Parliamentary representatives to enter our protest in this House against these provisions. The Glasgow Corporation have practically unanimously agreed that the provisions made for that area and other distressed areas are not in keeping with the necessities and the needs of Glasgow people as a whole, and they sent from their meeting yesterday telegrams to every Member of the area independent of party, in which they say,
Unemployment Bill. With reference to telegram of 11th instant"—
That was a previous telegram before the announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on Monday:
Chancellor's concession to distressed areas. Public Assistance Committee consider relief afforded totally inadequate, and urge further endeavours be made to have the whole financial burden taken over by the Government. Town Clerk of Glasgow.
Glasgow has asked, as I have said, that all the Parliamentary representatives should go into the Lobby against the Government in an attempt to force them to realise their responsibility to the area. So far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we need no stimulation from the Glasgow Corporation or from any supporters of the National Government in Glasgow to go into the Lobby against the Government because of the inadequate provisions of this Bill. Therefore, it is to be hoped that those Members who are giving service to the National Government will take heed of the overwhelming demand of the public bodies in Glasgow, of the press, of public representatives and the general public who are incensed against the provisions of the Bill. I propose to give a small excerpt from an article by Sir Henry Keith in the "Glasgow Herald" of yesterday. Sir Henry Keith is a Conservative from the Lanarkshire area, but he is in the unique position that he is an intelligent Conservative, and he has taken a very prominent part in local government work in Scotland. He has always attempted to apply the logical mind to local government. He has been imbued with a certain business and humane instincts, and expresses them fearlessly from time to time, no matter whether he has been a supporter of the Government or not. When he sees them doing the wrong thing, he attempts to correct them, and to show where they err
by being not over-lavish in their concessions to the public. He says:

"The opposition of the Scottish public assistance authorities to the Unemployment Bill centres almost exclusively round the financial provisions. In his address to the House of Commons on December 4 the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent some time explaining the proposals of the Bill in this connection, devoting attention to the argument that the Government had not merely fulfilled the pledge given by Sir Hilton Young on April 12, but had gone beyond his promise. It is therefore desirable to examine that promise in relation to the proposals of the Bill. Sir Hilton Young said—"The central Government shall accept responsibility, both administrative and financial, for assisting all able-bodied unemployed who need assistance. The acceptance of this responsibility by the central Government will necessitate a readjustment of the present block grant paid to the local authorities by the State, since they will be relieved of a liability to which they have hitherto been subject. At the same time we shall take the occasion of these financial readjustments to make some allowance on a. regular basis for the special necessities of what are commonly described in this connection as the distressed areas." Sir Hilton Young modified this promise by indicating that the Government would accept an amendment put forward by the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson). Mr. Thompson's amendment was:—"The House resolves that responsibility for assistance to all able-bodied unemployed not over 65 years of age should be accepted by the Government, with such readjustment in financial relations between Exchequer and local authorities as is reasonable, having special regard to the necessities of distressed areas."

These are clear and definite promies, and committed the Government to accept responsibility for the relief of all the able-bodied unemployed of 65 and under, with such readjustment in the financial relations of the Exchequer and local authorities as is reasonable, having regard specially to the necessities of distressed area6. It is not clear that in the Bill any special arrangement has been made on behalf of distressed areas, although Section 44 (2) (i) at first glance appears to make some such arrangement; but as drafted that section reads more like a practical joke than an effort to relieve the distressed areas, in so far as it makes the condition of relief depend upon the authority receiving a grant for the current' year of an amount which is quite outside the experience of any local authority in Scotland; and it would be a surprise to find that there are any authorities in England who are more fortunate. The clause could be so expressed as to give relief to distressed areas, and that may be tried in Committee, if competent. The Chancellor, however, has just promised (December 11) that £300,000 shall be made available. Meanwhile we have to inquire, first, what are the financial relations exist-
ing at the present time between the Exchequer and local authorities, and, second, what is the connotation and just interpretation of the phrase, "as is reasonbale." So far as I can ascertain, there is no specific grant by the Exchequer for unemployment other than the £60,000 granted to distressed areas in Scotland for one year (the current year), and an equivalent to England and Wales.

"The general Exchequer contribution" paid out of moneys provided by Parliament is determined under the provisions of Section 53 (3) (c) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. We are in the second "fixed grant period" of that contribution. It was revised on the basis of "the rate and grant-borne expenditure" in the "penultimate year" of the first "fixed grant period"—that is, the expenditure in the financial year, 1931-32.

The cost of able-bodied relief in Glasgow in the year 1931-32 was £650,074, less than in the year after by about £270,000, and loss than in the current year by about £575,000, and neither of the two latter sums qualified for the derating grant. Both sums were a charge exclusively on the ratepayers.

In fixing the general Exchequer contribution to Scotland for the four years beginning 16th May, 1933, the figue of £650,000 for 1931-32, and similar increased figures for other distressed areas, would swell the rate and grant-borne expenditure of Scotland for that year, and to that extent only increase the block grant for the second fixed grant period; but the formula grant, in respect of unemployment, to Glasgow and other distressed areas (under Part III, Article (2), of the 1929 Act) was based on the average number of the unemployed insured persons for the three years preceding 16th May, 1933, so that it was increased to them, not at the expense of the Treasury, but out of the Scottish block grant as a whole, for the Treasury's obligations were determined by the figures for 1931-32 (the "penultimate year"). As a matter of fact, the Treasury has escaped from contributing for the whole of the second fixed grant period (four years) a derating grant on the increased cost of able-bodied relief in 1932-33, the last year of the first fixed grant period, amounting to £545,000, and has escaped a still larger contribution in respect of the following year.

It will be seen, therefore, that a reasonable adjustment of the financial relations would imply a giving as well as a taking by the Treasury. But that is not the proposal of the Bill. By Section 44 it is proposed to enact that 60 per cent. of the cost of able-bodied relief as that cost was ascertained in 1932-33, together with 60 per cent. of a defined proportion of administrative costs, shall be borne by the local authorities. The exaction, as shown above, is to be made on a figure about £540,000 above the figure at which the general Exchequer contribution to Scotland is calculated for the second fixed grant period, due to the rapid increase of the cost of able-bodied relief in the year succeeding the penultimate year.

"The burden to be borne by Glasgow appears to work out as follows:—The city expenditure on able-bodied unemployed relief for 1932-33 was £920,474. Of this figure Glasgow will probably bear 100 per cent. of one-fifth—namely £184,095, together with 60 per cent. of the balance—namely, £441,828—a total charge of £625,923, which is the contribution to be paid by Glasgow for two and a half years.

"Glasgow will also bear the whole increased cost, if any, above that of 1932-33 of able-bodied relief of all to whom the Bill does not apply in these years. This burden, however, will be reduced by the amount of the general Exchequer contribution which the city is to retain till the next fixed grant period. It would, however be erroneous to assume as between the Treasury and Glasgow that that is more than Glasgow's proportion of £100,000 (the amount of new money provided for the second fixed grant period). Apart from this, Glasgow is entitled to practically all the grants due in respect of derating and the percentage grants cancelled in 1929. Glasgow's share of the block grant for the next fixed grant period will depend to some extent on the rate and grant-borne expenditure of Scotland as a whole.

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made much polemical capital out of the assertion that the ratepayers are' only asked to pay 5 per cent., while the State is paying 95 per cent. of able-bodied unemployed relief, Sir Godfrey Collins gave 6.8 per cent. and 93.2 per cent. as the proportions for Scotland. The Chancellor ignores the repeated demand of all local authorities that the whole cost of able-bodied relief should be borne by the State, and he ignores the promise which the Government made through Sir Hilton Young that it would do so.

"It is not financial adjustment to charge 60 per cent. of any year's expenditure to the ratepayers. It is a financial evasion of a duty devolving on the State. The cost of the proposed relief to local authorities is officially given at £2,600,000. The cost of able-bodied relief in the latest completed year is estimated, for Scotland, at something round about £1.600 000. Allowing 20 per cent. of this for "rejects" to be borne by the ratepayers. 40 per cent. of the balance is £512,000. If this represents Scotland's share of relief, and England and Wales only need the balance, there is cither an error in the figures or Scotland's burden is relatively greater than that of England and Wales. The new educational burden is stated at £750,000. of which probably £75,000 is applicable to Scotland. Perhaps it is worth while quoting Section 78 of the 1929 Act:

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. MCGOVERN: May be, I am reading it too quickly.
'It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of material additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public
health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.' The new service to be imposed on areas with an excessive number of unemployed seems, under that section, to demand contributions beyond those proposed in the Bill.
Probably hon. Members would like me to read it again. That puts the case from the Conservative point of view more eloquently than it has ever been put in this House. That is the opinion of one of the leading Conservatives of Scotland of the financial provisions of this Bill, and it is contributed to the leading Conservative paper in Scotland, which has been roundly condemning these inadequate financial provisions for distressed areas in Scotland and in the country generally.
Our objection to the financial provisions of the Bill is, on the more class issue, that Glasgow and the other distressed areas are not distressed areas through any fault of their own. The people are not unemployed because they want to be. During the days of prosperity those areas grew up as successful industrial areas, and contributed to the general wealth of the country and of the world. As the miners say, all wealth comes from the point of the pick, and they were entitled to expect, if the wealth which they created was taken from them by a ruling class living in suburban areas and in aristocratic areas, that when evil days came and unemployment was rife those who had contributed to the wealth of the country would receive greater consideration than they are getting under the provisions of this Bill. We say that even from an ordinary Conservative point of view the Government are failing in their duty to the people who have placed them in office. The people in the depressed industrial areas were entitled to expect that the general reserves of the nation would be applied to help those areas in their extremity, that the Government would come to their aid as they have gone to the aid of the bondholders in Austria and in Newfoundland. At least they ought to have said to the lowest section, economically, in this country that they should not be penalised by contrast with those who are outside this country and have never contributed to the wealth or well-being of the nation.
We claim that the Government should regard unemployment as a national problem, and that as the Government
have failed to provide employment the cost of able-bodied and Poor Law relief, for the sustenance of those who are out of work, ought to be cast upon the shoulders of all those in the country who are best able to bear the burden. The Government are not entitled to go to a depressed area and say to the people there "You are in poverty, you are living in slums, you are unemployed through world capitalist depression, and because we cannot provide for you we are going to see that the other citizens in your area, who are paid low wages, who are working long hours and who are rated up to the hilt, shall bear a large portion of the burden of the unemployment and poverty in the area." The Government are stultifying the efforts of the local authorities to deal with the depression and the economic effects of the present order of society, because, with the burden which this imposes upon them and the inability of their citizens to meet the increasing rates they are being compelled to tighten up the social services.
In Lanarkshire, the area which Sir Henry Keith represents, the financial stringency is so great that they have adopted methods which no civilised authority ought to be compelled to adopt. Whereas previously they have given boots and clothing to the children of necessitous parents in the distressed areas they say they are now compelled, by the growing unemployment, by the growing taxation and by the refusal of the Government to shoulder its responsibilities, to apply not only a means test but a medical test to the children before granting boots and clothing. Children are being queued up and subjected to examination, their feet are being examined, and they are being sounded. They do not say to the child, "Let me examine your boots and your clothes to see if they can keep out the cold, the rain and the snow." They say, "Let us sound you, and if you are bodily in a decent state of health, it does not matter whether your boots are drawing water or your clothes are an inadequate protection against the wind, the cold, and the storm. You are going to be refused boots and clothes."
The smug and wealthy areas of this country are to be protected at the expense of the children of the poor in these distressed areas. It is a shameful thing for a Government to come here with
financial provisions of this description' and say that they are facing up to their responsibilities in a civilised way. They are shirking their responsibilities. Even allowing for their belief that the Bill is essential, I say that there are untapped resources in this country that are competent to shoulder their share of responsibility for the distress in these areas, and in so far as the Government keep on piling on to the 15s. 3d. man, and the 23s. 3d. married man and wife, and the 2s. a week child, burden after burden, economy after economy, test after test, in order to free those in high places and allow them to live a life of luxury, ease, and comfort at the expense of a section of the poor, it is outrageous.
I am here, after having sat all night in this House, and I am not complaining. I am prepared to sit all night again if the rules permit and if it will forward the proposition that there should be adequate and humane treatment of the poor. We consider the bondholders, the capitalists, we run to their aid, we prop up their financial institutions, we run to pay them their dividends, their rent, and their interest, but when it comes to the human frames of individuals who are being thrust into the gutter, and poverty, and despair, we fail to accept the responsibility of what ought to be a national and not a local charge. I have been told that the proper Parliamentary approach is to go to the Minister, cap in hand, and to plead on behalf of these people in the slums and the children who are being done to death by inadequate nourishment and food, and I say that there is no opportunity in this House to make a humane approach. Bills are brought in and they are driven through as they were driven through during the night, and I am bound to tell the working classes of this country that, so far as the minds of the National Government are concerned, they are drunk with power and they are using that power mercilessly on the common people. The ruling class have crimes to answer for that humanity will make them pay for when the time comes. Their excesses on the common people will probably be paid for in excesses that we do not desire in another way. Do not imagine, because you are seated on these benches and making inadequate financial arrangements, that you in this House are having power for all time. If you sub-
mitted these provisions to the country and to the average elector, they would sweep you from power and put in men who were actuated by more humane motives towards the unemployed. My final word to you is this: Your time may come, as the time of previous Governments has come, and people who are drunk with power to-day will be reduced to a position of servitude when the time comes for the electors to declare their voice and give their mandate. You will then be oppressed, and in the distressed areas you will have the poverty-stricken mass of humanity, outraged, degraded, and tortured under your brutal, tyrannical control, rising in revolt and sweeping you out of power to make way for men with more humane and decent instincts.

12 noon.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in line 136, at the end, to insert "one-third of."
After the violent oration to which we have just listened, I am afraid that my humble and, I hope, matter of fact attempt to deal with the actual problem before us may fall rather flat, but, unlike the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), I cannot rise to heights of eloquence and exaggeration after such a night as we have spent. I make no apology for intruding this Amendment on the notice of the Committee. Its object is to reduce by two-thirds the extra grant that was conceded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the distressed areas.

Mr. LOGAN: To reduce it?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Yes.

Mr. LOGAN: You have been up all night.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I make no apology for seeking to reduce it, because we have learnt by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was wrong of us to keep silent when the Bill was first introduced. There were those of us who felt that it was a good Bill, which erred, if anything, by being too generous to the local authorities, but as it got rid of the control of the local authorities, we were prepared to accept it. We thought the best service we could render to the Government was to keep silent, and, therefore, we did not intervene. What was our pain and surprise to find that, while we
supported the Government with our silence, they gave away £300,000 more to these distressed areas?
Those of us who feel strongly on this subject are convinced that the original provisions of the Bill were quite generous enough. We are not moved by a vindictive spirit. We do not want to recall too much to-day the fact that what are now distressed areas were at one "time prosperous areas, and that what are now prosperous areas were at one time distressed areas, and that when, at that time, we came to them and asked for help—it was at the beginning of the century and before the war—we were told that we must stew in our own juice. We do not want to take that attitude. We are prepared to accept a national responsibility for a national problem, but only in so far as it is a national problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his original proposal, offered 95 per cent. of the payment to the unemployed, and I maintain that 5 per cent. is not too much to ask from the local authorities, who are by no means guiltless in this matter, as I propose to endeavour to prove.
We have been told by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that everyone who is interested in local authorities will be glad of this concession. I am extremely interested in local authorities. I am interested, to quote an old-fashioned phrase about another legislative assembly, in ending or mending them, and I am by no means gratified by this action. I know something about these local authorities in the distressed areas, and I would ask my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite to note that I am not talking about Scotland, because I do not know anything about the action of the local authorities there, but I do know something about the action of the local authorities in the distressed areas in England.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What areas does the hon. Member mean?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Durham, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North Eastern and Northern areas of England. I do know that these authorities—

Mr. LOGAN: As the hon. Member talks about the distressed areas and too much being given to them, I want to ask him
does he know anything about those areas, and if so, does he think that the people in them are well off?

Mr. BEAUMONT: I wished to show every courtesy to the hon. Gentleman by giving way to him, but I thought he would produce an interruption more worthy than that. I do know something about the distressed areas and local government there. I know that the people are not wealthy, and one reason is the gross extravagance of the local authorities [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot!"] I assert without fear of contradiction that those local authorities which are now being given £300,000 of other people's money are the most extravagant and wasteful administrative bodies which this country has ever seen. Leaving out altogether the question of the administration of the unemployed or of the Poor Law, take every comparable figure you like and it will be found that in expenditure on education, on highways, and in that most wasteful, ruinous and unemployment-making expenditure, namely, expenditure on public works, these local authorities are extravagant. The high rates and unemployment in their areas are due primarily to their extravagance. I would say to my Socialist friends opposite that this is not a question of party politics. The most wasteful of these authorities are, and will be for a long time to come, bodies with Conservative majorities. It is not a question of party politics but of the mentality of those areas, and I complain most bitterly that this money should be given to areas which are, I maintain, directly responsible to the extent of at least 5 per cent for the extra distress which has come upon them owing to the gross extravagance in which they have indulged in the past 15 years.

Mr. MAINWARING: Bunk!

Mr. BEAUMONT: I have listened very courteously to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, although I disagree with them as strongly as hon. Members disagree with me. I hope very much that the hon. Member will extend to me the courtesy that I have tried to extend to his friends.

Mr. MAINWARING: I will, when there is a reasonable argument.

Mr. BEAUMONT: It is reasonable and I will prove it.

Mr. MAINWARING: I challenge the hon. Member to mention an area that will prove one sentence of what he is saying.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I do not propose at this hour to bore the Committee with a lot of figures. I only wish to say that I and others associated with me in this matter believe, and have always believed, that we shall not get unemployment cured or a material improvement in trade, that we shall not improve the conditions of the people—for whom I agree hon. Members opposite speak sincerely, though I believe wrongly—until we get a reduction in the burdens of rating and taxation. Such a reduction is perfectly impossible if we are to subsidise extravagance. We are prepared to pay a certain amount for the comfort of getting rid of the control of local authorities, but I suggest that this proposal is going too far. It has been based very largely on the arguments of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I would remind hon. Members what the Association suggested, not in their last memorandum, but in an earlier memorandum dated 19th January, 1933, in which they said:
We consider that the only classes of persons whose assistance is properly and rightly a local charge are unemployed persons over 65 years of age, and persons who cannot be regarded as effective industrial workers on account of physical or mental incapacity.
They pointed out a recommendation of the Royal Commission which said, in effect, that there were some 437,000 people receiving unemployment benefit who were not, strictly speaking, able-bodied unemployed, and who, therefore, should be on the local authority. This Bill not only takes over under the scheme the whole of the able-bodied unemployed, but it keeps on the 437,000 who as the Association suggested in their own Memorandum, should be a local charge. I regret that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) is not in his place, although he has given me an explanation of his absence. He complained in his speech of being misled by a statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on 6th July. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary said:
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dukie) asked whether the Minister stuck to the principle which he enunciated on 12th April that the State recognised national responsibility, financial and administrative, subject to block grant re-adjustment. What
my right hon. Friend has said, he has said, and what he has said, he means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1933; Cols. 621-2, Vol. 280.]
That is carried out exactly by the proposals of the Government, and I suggest that the Government have fulfilled every one of their pledges. In so far as they have erred, they have erred on the side of generosity by this extra grant. It is an unjust imposition on areas which have their own problems and have tried to deal with them soundly and economically.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have heard an amazing speech from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), and I want to show him, in spite of the fact that he claims to know something about distressed areas, that his speech has disclosed a great deal of ignorance of the position. I will bring him to my own Parliamentary division to prove to him that he knows very little about distressed areas. He has declared that the distress in those areas is accounted for in a great measure by the extravagance of local authorities.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member quotes me correctly, but I would like to point out that I also said they were responsible, by their extravagance, for 5 per cent. of the distress.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member declared that the local authorities were not blameless in their present position. Let me ask him if he will be good enough to follow case I have in mind, which will show him that be does not in fact know what is happening in his own country. There is a small urban district council called Aspull in my division. In that district the coalmines have been closed for three years, the textile mills are closed, the iron works are closed, and not a single wheel has turned in that urban area for the last three years. Practically everybody is unemployed except those who can get employment outside, and I want to assure the hon. Member that the work of the local authority has not the remotest connection with what has happened to the industrial undertakings there.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman another instance. There is another township, Hindley, with 26,000 inhabitants. There were 17 coal shafts working there ten years ago. There are only six to-day.
In spite of the fact that there is a Labour majority on the local authority the rates have declined under their control. The hon. Gentleman is not correct in blaming the local authorities for the economic situation as these instances show. Take Lancashire as a whole. Lancashire is gradually becoming a derelict area. When the hon. Member blames the local authorities for the economic condition in Lancashire surely he is wrong. The economic conditions in Lancashire are known to everybody. Some people blame Japanese competition for them, but the central factor in causing the conditions which prevail in Lancashire to-day is that nearly all the countries to which we used to export textile goods prior to the War are now manufacturing their own textiles. The millowners in Lancashire are in great measure being relieved of rates to-day, but if they were relieved of every penny of rates, and if they paid no wages at all to their employé s, I cannot conceive that, even under those conditions, they could effectually compete in the Eastern markets with people who are producing the same commodities on the spot.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I do not doubt a word of what the hon. Gentleman says but my view is that the action of the local authorities has exacerbated the trouble instead of soothing, it.

Mr. DAVIES: Let me take the hon. Gentleman a little further to see if I cannot convince him. The hon. Gentleman is definitely an enemy of the local authorities.

Mr. BEAUMONT: No.

Mr. DAVIES: When we were dealing with the question of greyhound racing tracks and the right of the local authorities to control them the hon. Gentleman opposed the local authorities then and I think that indicates his attitude. But I take him a stage further in the argument. What is the position in Manchester and Salford and particularly in Salford? When a man has made sufficient money in business in Manchester or Salford he proceeds at once to build a house in Blackpool, or St. Anne's-on-Sea, or Lytham, or Alderley Edge, or Wilmslow. The people who have made money there clear out of the industrial centres They use these industrial townships merely for business purposes only, and the trains between these centres and such
places as Southport, Blackpool and Lytham are filled each night and morning with gentlemen who make their money in Manchester and Salford and similar districts but who do not condescend to live in the places where their money is being made. That is one of the problems. Will the hon. Gentleman opposite go still further with his argument and tell us now what he would like the local authorities to do in order to reduce expenditure. Would he cut down expenditure on education? I suppose he would, except, of course, on the education of the rich.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I do not accept the hon. Member's implication but I certainly would cut down expenditure on education.

Mr. DAVIES: Would he cut down the money which is spent on necessitous school children?

Mr. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: Would he cut down expenditure on water supplies?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Sometimes.

Mr. DAVIES: Or would he cut down expenditure on transport?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Yes.

Mr. DAVIES: I am afraid the hon. Member represents a Parliamentary division in which none of these distressing problems arise but I want the Committee to understand that those of us who live in industrial areas must have regard for the welfare of the people whom we represent. Parliament has not faced the issue created in these industrial areas since the coming of the motor car and the increase in. transport facilities. People are going out into the country to live and leaving the manufacturing districts derelict and allowing them to look after themselves. Any Government which takes office, whatever its political colour, will be compelled some day to face that problem of the allocation of the burden as between the people who can afford to live in the country or at the seaside, and those who are compelled to remain in industrial centres. That is a more important factor in the situation than those which have been indicated by the hon. Gentleman. Finally, I would impress one thing upon him and
it is that if he believes honestly in what he has told us this morning his place is not in the Conservative party at all. He ought to join the Fascist brigade at once.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is only reasonable that all points of view should be expressed in this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) has expressed his point of view with great earnestness and conviction. I think the only complaint that can be made regarding him—and he admitted it himself—is that he did not express his point of view at an earlier stage. What was the situation? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a proposal to relieve local authorities of a percentage of their burden. He was pressed to concede more. He was pressed on all hands, not only in this House but by deputations and in correspondence.
In the course of the last Debate on the Financial Resolution he was described as the "Iron Chancellor" who was unresponsive to all appeals and incapable of making any concession. But, despite the taunts flung at my right hon. Friend, he did make a concession to the distressed areas representing a saving to them of £300,000 and that concession was welcomed on all hands because, as I said, from every quarter he had been pressed to make it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury now comes along, somewhat tardily as he himself agrees, and asks us to reduce the value of the concession to £100,000. We cannot play fast and loose with the distressed areas. My right hon. Friend having made the concession and having formally announced it and the concession having been accepted, the hon. Member for Aylesbury can hardly expect him at this stage to withdraw it. But although he can hardly expect that one must acknowledge the service which he has rendered. Up to the moment when he spoke the concession had been received by some hon. Members and notably by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) somewhat churlishly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury having exhibited the opposite side of the case and expressed the view that these distressed areas are not deserving of such a concession, perhaps those who have been inclined to criticise my
right hon. Friend in this matter will now rally to his support. Therefore I would like to express my indebtedness to my hon. Friend for having Moved this Amendment but I am sure he does not expect the Committee to accept it at this late stage.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: I think the Committee will agree that it has listened to one of the most amazing of the amazing performances that we have learned to expect from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his concession to the distressed areas we all welcomed it, though I for one thought that the way in which he contrived to grant it showed a canniness which was more becoming to the Border than to Birmingham; but those who have drawn up this Amendment have contrived to work into it a pettiness which is both calculated and uncomprehending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer offered the distressed areas 60 per cent. of generosity, but the framers of this Amendment are offering them 80 per cent. of meanness and 20 per cent. of pity. I contend that those who criticise should themselves be above criticism. The hon. Member for Aylesbury represents an area where unemployment is 4.2 per cent. of the insured population. In my constituency we have 43.1 per cent. of unemployment. I think we ought to be able to expect from the representatives of areas such as Aylesbury sympathy, help and example. When, however, I look at the figures of the expenditure of Aylesbury and of Sunderland, I find that Sunderland, this extravagant distressed area, spends £2 18s. 2d. per head of its population, while when I look at Aylesbury I find that this scrupulously economical local authority spends no less than £3 17s. 6d. per head of its population.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: May I ask if the figures which the hon. Member is giving are borough council figures? If so, they are not comparable at all, for the one authority is a county borough and the other a non-county borough.

Mr. STOREY: The figures are comparable per head of the population.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Who spends the money?

Mr. STOREY: I think that when we have figures like these we may well ask those critics to practise what they preach. The distressed areas only ask for justice. They have uncomplainingly joined in helping the agricultural areas, and they are entitled to ask the agricultural areas to join in giving help to the most distressed areas. The concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to the distressed areas goes a very small way to smooth out some of the anomalies in what is otherwise a fair and equitable settlement of the problem over the whole country, and I ask the Committee with no uncertain voice to refuse to have anything to do with the pettifogging, cheeseparing of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He tells us that it cost £2 a head to govern Sunderland, and £3 15s. to govern Aylesbury. With all respect, I am rather doubtful as to the accuracy of both those figures, because the general average over the whole of Great Britain is rather more than £6 per head, and I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Sunderland has included in his total all the expenditure in either area. If he has, those two districts show divergencies from the general average which are so striking that they call for some special examination.
I am one of those who frankly support the point of view of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), and for this reason, that I am concerned, not with dealing with the symptoms of the industrial disease, but with the attempt to cure it. I am perfectly satisfied, as I always have been, that one of the outstanding reasons for the vast unemployment which now prevails in this country is the overwhelming burden of national and local taxation. The total of that burden to-day, 'as far as we can estimate it, is in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. of the aggregate income of the nation; the nett amount taken in rates and taxes is to-day some 25 per cent. of our national income. The pre-war level was roughly 10 per cent. That burden is now 2½ times as great as the pre-War burden in relation to our resources. The hon. Member for Sunderland grumbles, and rightly grumbles, because of the vast, the
tragic unemployment in his constituency, but we are not going to solve that unemployment by casting further burdens on the taxpayer; we are going to solve that unemployment by reducing the burdens on the taxpayer, so that there may be a far freer circulation of money than prevails at this moment.
The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was eloquent, but his eloquence had little relation to the subject. No one would have dreamed, from the way in which he condemned the Front Bench and the House generally, that this country at the present moment, under the provisions of the Unemployment Bill, was contemplating an aggregate Exchequer charge for relief of those who are unemployed amounting to £75,000,000 per annum in round figures—a charge for which there is no parallel in any other country in the world; and I think there ought to be a fuller realisation of the situation. In pre-war days one-quarter of the expenditure of the local authorities was borne out of Parliamentary grants; to-day nearly one-half is borne out of Parliamentary grants. The total raised in rates has more than doubled, and the Parliamentary grants are to-day 5½ times as great as they were in pre-War days. Until we make a cut in the Parliamentary grants we are not going to force on the local authorities that economical and competent management which we ought to see.
It is absurd to say that there is not gross waste in the local administration of this country. Everyone is conscious of it, but people have not the political courage to oppose it. What is wanted is political courage to stand up against pressure. I am not going to hesitate to stand up against pressure in any circumstances whatever, and I think we have to come to the stage of facing the problem of how we are going to restore employment to our people. The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. Morris) said that he was going to vote against the Government because he has not got enough. He represents the Borough of Salford, which has 88,630 insured workpeople. Not very far away is the Borough of Oldham, with only 10 fewer insured workpeople. They are, therefore, comparable areas. In Salford unemployment is substantially less proportionally
than in Oldham and yet I find that Salford is paying Poor Law relief to a substantially higher proportion of people than is the case in Oldham. Might it not be worth while for the hon. Member for Salford to go to his borough Council and submit to them that they should examine their own circumstances, and inquire why a town so near to them as Oldham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not inquire in Oldham?"]—Oldham shows a more favourable position than Salford. It would almost seem that the ideal condition for a person in this country is to be in receipt of Poor Law relief. That is a manifest absurdity which we want to exorcise from our minds as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. MORRIS: May I say that the City Council in Salfor3 have consistently, over the last four years, reduced their rate charges? That belies at once the hon. Member's charge that Salford is in any way extravagant.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am pointing out that in Salford the proportion of the population in receipt of Poor Law relief is 25 per cent. higher than in Oldham, though unemployment in Salford is less than in Oldham.

Mr. CROSSLEY: There is a perfectly good reason for that, and it is not a fair point for the hon. Member to make. The real reason is simply that Oldham is a cotton town, and in the cotton industry the family is quite definitely the unit. Therefore, where there are, say, two people working in the family, far fewer families would have to go to the Poor Law for assistance.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Precisely. In other words, there is a greater sense of personal responsibility in Oldham than in Salford. I have a very considerable measure of affection for the City of Liverpool, because I spent a good deal of my early life there. Liverpool and Manchester are cities very much alike. They have very much the same proportion of insured persons, but Liverpool is very much harder hit than Manchester, and its unemployment figures are nearly double those of Manchester. There is, however, a very small difference between the proportions of the population being relieved in Manchester and in Liverpool, and if the scale of relief in Liver-
pool is reasonable, that in Manchester is extravagant. I am not going blindly to accept the view of those hon. Members who come here begging that other parts of the country shall relieve their needs, until we have found out whether or not there is extravagance in their areas. Liverpool is one of the places asking for assistance. I see the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logah) in his place. He represents, and with truth, that his is a distressed area, in which a very large number of people are out of work. Many of those who are in work in the city of Liverpool are less well remunerated than the employés of the City Council. This distressed area is proposing to restore, on 1st January, the cuts in pay made as a consequence of the national crisis. The constituency which I represent has not so far restored the cuts. The responsibility is not mine, but is the responsibility of the borough council. The proposal now is that the people of Croydon as a consequence of the crisis, are still asking their municipal employé s to submit to a cut, should have so much of their money taken away from them to be handed to the people of Liverpool at a time when Liverpool, while proclaiming itself a distressed area, is acting as if it had all the money in the world.
I ask hon. Members to face their responsibilities in this matter to a much greater extent than they have done in the past. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), right at the beginning of the Debate, entirely misconceived the scheme. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. I have never heard him use more words to say less than he did in the three-quarters of an hour during which he addressed the Committee. He explained the transfer of responsibility from Part, II of the Bill to Part I, that is, the transfer from the Unemployment Assistance Fund to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, under which £8,350,000 will be paid, in place of the £6,250,000 which would be paid if the law were left untouched, and tried to persuade us that the payment of £2,100,000 more in benefit would be prejudicial. When a Measure is supported by a contention of that character—which the hon. Member tried to reinforce from the banking world, until he got so involved that he had to abandon his pursuit
of that line of discussion—it indicates the complete bankruptcy in argument of those who have assailed the Bill in general terms. The terms in the Bill are more generous by far than any advocate of the distressed areas ever contemplated six months ago.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I can only say that, so far as my own local authority is concerned, and all local authorities in that distressed area, what the hon. Member has just said is entirely untrue.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What I said was that the terms are far better than any of them contemplated they would get.

Mr. PYBUS: How does the hon. Gentleman know what they contemplated?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have had some little experience of what is in people's minds when they make demands. Forty per cent. of the cost of the relief of the able-bodied unemployed is to be obtainable from the National Exchequer, which is to be saddled with responsibility for those who, for various reasons in the past, have never come for assistance, even though they may have been qualified, and that immense responsibility has been taken over at a time when the Parliamentary grants to local authorities are at a level never contemplated in the past. It is perfectly manifest that those are terms of the utmost generosity. They are terms of such generosity as to imperil, in some small degree, that vital reduction of taxation without which we shall never restore employment to our people. In every Debate in which I take place in this Parliament, I am going to urge the need for the reduction of taxation, because I believe that that is the only thing that will help a return to employment for our fellow-countrymen.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: In the first place, I would like to say to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) that if, in the heat of the moment, I caused him any offence, I am sorry. What was tickling my fancy when the hon. Member was speaking was a comparison of the ducks of Aylesbury with the pigs' cheek and cabbage of the Scotland Division of Liverpool. I was just wondering, when the hon. Member mentioned his knowledge of the northern areas of the country how much he really knew of the position.
He made a comment regarding Liverpool. I am aware that he knows something of Liverpool, but, so far as the conditions of the people of Liverpool are concerned, I think that he is just as much a stranger to them as many other hon. Members. I know of no place in the country which is worse off than Liverpool to-day. In 1922, Liverpool was paying £100,000 in relief to the able-bodied unemployed, and of that money £10,000 was being paid by Bootle. Today, the City of Liverpool alone pays £650,000 for able-bodied relief, and that sum covers 41,556 people. The number of unemployed is 14,370, and that figure represents families. These are unemployed and not destitute cases. The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke of authorities being extravagant; let me bring to his notice something which will explain why I was excited at his comments and enable him to understand the real position.
I do not think Zola could more graphically illustrate the position than a mere recital of a case which came to my notice four weeks ago in Liverpool. A woman was burying her child, a little girl of six years. She received £6 funeral money. The expenses of the funeral, for the coffin and so on, were £3 15s. She paid 7s. 2d. to get a pair of boots out of pawn, 8s. 6d. for a dress for herself, 15s. for food for the friends and relatives—who only get a feed at a funeral—4s. 11d. to buy a little coat to cover the rags of another child so that she could go to her sister's burial, 1s. 11½d. for a little nightdress to put on the corpse and 6½ d. for a little ribbon to put round its neck. The total sum expended was £5 14s. 7d., and 5s. 5d. was left out of the £6. The relieving officer, in the extravagant city of Liverpool which is alleged to be giving the rates away, stopped £l out of the 30s. relief to the woman because she had had that money to pay the expenses of the burial of her little child. I had to go to that Assistance Committee to get that £l refunded. I tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that it is a slight on the City of Liverpool and upon these people to say that there is extravagance, when such narrowness of view is shown even in regard to the question of burial of the dead in the City of Liverpool.
Another case which came before my notice in Liverpool in regard to expendi-
ture made me feel ashamed. I was sitting on a relief committee and a gentleman appeared before me. I never felt more humiliated than I did on that occasion. I asked him when he last worked, and he replied that he last worked three years ago. When I asked him what he had been doing during the last three years he said: "In consequence of unemployment almost everything we had in the home has gone. I am driven to destitution." He then took a book from his pocket and handed it to me. It contained master's certificates, showing that he had been sailing in one of the Atlantic liners out of the Part of Liverpool. I never felt more humiliated than I did then, in realising that I sat at one side of the counter while a man who had sailed the seas of the world, even in the time of the War, had to stand on the other side asking for help, and the only sum that we could allow him was 15s. unemployment pay for an able-bodied man.
The scale of relief in the City for a woman and child is 18s. a week, out of which rent has to be paid. I ask the hon. Member for Aylesbury to withdraw his words in regard to the extravagance of the guardians in Liverpool. I bring this indictment against the National Government, that when we wanted a little extra relief at Christmas, something that we have had in Liverpool for 20 years, a little extra coal, a little extra food, the Minister approved the decision of an auditor in the City of Liverpool that a surcharge to the amount of £250 every member of the guardians who voted the money would take place. I am sorry to say that, because of the letter received from the Minister of Health, this great dynamic National party, which when talking on the poverty question say how ably they have helped the City of Liverpool, which for over 20 years has given extra relief at Christmas time, will be able to give no extra relief. Then I come to the House of Commons, and I hear charges of extravagance being made against the City.
I had not intended to speak, but when I found such ignorance being displayed in regard to a great City like Liverpool, a seaport second to none in the world, on which the British Empire has rested for much of its greatness, I could not refrain from speaking. There are 14,000 members of the British mercantile marine walking the streets of that City. There are 40.000
seamen and firemen out of work, and there are 2,000 British mercantile marine officers walking the streets of the country, while at the same time one finds Chinese, Lascars, Arabs and others employed on British ships, and one finds Members of this House, who dare to get up and speak about poverty, discharging from their ships white men and taking on Chinese crews. Hon. Members talk about the British Union Jack. Let them talk about British seamen and give them a chance. Let hon. Members not forget the men who in the day of national crisis saved the British mercantile marine and this country, and many lost their lives in doing so.
This House must face the position that not only in Liverpool but in every great industrial area that is depressed, we contend that the liability in regard to this question of the unemployed is a national matter and ought to be made a national charge. The day of preferential treatment is a thing of the past. We contend that until 100 per cent. of the whole cost of able-bodied relief is taken over by the Government, there is no chance of any of the depressed areas being satisfied. I shall go into the Lobby to vote against the Government and there is not one Member from the City of Liverpool—and there are ten Tory Members representing that City—but must voice the opinion that I am voicing and must see that, so far as the City of Liverpool is concerned, it is a national disgrace that a National Government is not facing up to the humane treatment of this human problem.

12.50 p.m.

Colonel CHAPMAN: The speeches that we have listened to from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) show quite clearly that they know nothing whatever about unemployment. The hon. Member for South Croydon would have us believe that local rates are the cause of unemployment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I said national and local taxation, and I pointed out that the national grants to local authorities were now five and a half times what they were in pre-war days.

Colonel CHAPMAN: At the present time we are talking of a national grant in aid of the local authorities. On the
North East Coast there are 69 per cent. of the workers in the shipbuilding industry out of work. Although the mines are working fairly well, there are still 31 per cent. of men out of work. Of the seafarers there are 34 per cent. out of work. If we had no local rates we should have not one more man in employment. How can those hon. Members know anything about unemployment, when they have never seen it?

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: With great respect, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that through my relatives I have spent much time in the County of Durham and know a good deal about it.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member keeps as far away from it as possible.

Colonel CHAPMAN: After what the hon. Member has just said, I am more surprised at the attitude that he has adopted. If he had had the opportunity of walking about in the County of Durham he would know of the awful distress that there has been there for the past eight years. Durham County and Glasgow have more unemployment combined than the City of London, with its teeming population. In Croydon for every 100,000 of the population they have only 270 receiving public assistance, while in Glasgow they have 1,100 and in Sheffield 1,200. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) compared the unemployment in Aylesbury with the unemployment in Sunderland. I will give another comparison. In Croydon the unemployment is 6.6 per cent. and in South Shields 42 per cent., and yet South Shields, somehow, by more careful administration, is not for this purpose considered a distressed area. But we in South Shields do not grudge having to pay something in a small degree to this grant of £300,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to the distressed areas.
There is another feature in connection with this matter which has not been brought before the House, and that is the incidence of juvenile unemployment. Under the Bill it is expected that there will be a new charge upon the local authorities of £280,000 a year. That charge is going to be on the distressed areas. Juvenile unemployment is not a problem in the South. In London there are only two per cent. of juveniles un-
employed and in Croydon only three per cent., but in Durham County it is 26 per cent.
In one of those villages, Bishop Auckland, there are 51, and it rises to the terrible figure of 98 in Jarrow, a town the size of Aylesbury, which has no unemployment among juveniles at all. This expenditure on the provision of training centres for juveniles will fall on these very distressed areas which the Chancellor is assisting in a small degree by this grant of £300,000. It is difficult to compare the rates of various authorities, but there is one expenditure of local authorities that we can compare to see whether these extravagant areas of the North compare at all with the economically run areas of the South. In Durham county, which is always held out as being a typical county of extravagance—I am not here to defend them; I think they spend far more than they need—the expenditure on education per child is £11 9s., the exact average of the whole country. In this carefully run city of Croydon it is £13 12s.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a scale of salaries known as the Burnham scale, and that in Croydon it is entirely different from Durham.

Colonel CHAPMAN: I am glad of the interruption, because I was coming to that. In Willesden, West Ham, Acton, and many other areas round London it is as high as £17 per head. Are the distressed areas contributing to that? The very great fall which the hon. Member has referred to is occasioned because in London, although the teachers have had a generous allowance for 13 years to pay for the extra expense of living in London, their automatic increments go on for four years longer, at a cost to the country far exceeding this £300,000 that is being given to the distressed areas. We in the North Eastern area thank the Government for this Bill. We believe it is a good Bill. It will be much better both for those who are entitled to draw their benefit and for those who, unfortunately, have to apply for assistance. It makes it possible for those who have to get assistance to get more than they can get now under transitional payments. I should have been very glad if the Chancellor had seen his way to take the whole burden, but he had his reasons;
they were good reasons to him and we must accept his decision. We gratefully accept this grant, and I hope, after the speeches which have been made, hon. Members opposite will withdraw their Amendment.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
 [12.59 a.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William


Balniel, Lord
Granville, Edgar
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Graves, Marjorie
Percy, Lord Eustace


Bateman, A. L.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Beaumont, Hon. H.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Borodale, Viscount.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Briant, Frank
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hartland, George A.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Remer, John R.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Ross, Ronald D.


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter Woodbridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Scone, Lord


Carver, Major William H.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Selley, Harry R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Janner, Barnett
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Kerr, Lieut.-Cot. Charles (Montrose)
Smithers, Waldron


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Knight, Holford
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Christie, James Archibald
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clarke, Frank
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Spens, William Patrick


Clarry, Reginald George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Storey, Samuel


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald
Stourton. Hon. John J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Strauss, Edward A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cook, Thomas A.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, Harold


Craven-Ellis, William
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Darby)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Crossley, A. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Train, John


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wardlaw-Milne. Sir John S.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Doran, Edward
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Weymouth, Viscount


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, John Francis
Meller, Sir Richard James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wise, Alfred R.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Womersley, Walter James


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B, Eyres
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)



Fox, Sir Gifford
Moreing, Adrian C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morgan, Robert H.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, Charles


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 30.

Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


John, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawton, John James
Thorne, William James
Mr. Groves and Mr. McGovern.

Question, "That the words' one-third of 'be there inserted," put accordingly, arid negatived.

Captain MARGESSON rose in his place, and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Mr. BUCHANAN rose—

The CHAIRMAN: After the Closure of the last Amendment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has the right to move the Main Question.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
11.10 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elmley, Viscount
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maitland, Adam


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bateman, A. L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Meller, Sir Richard James


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, C.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Borodale, Viscount
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Granville, Edgar
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Graves, Marjorie
Moreing, Adrian C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morgan, Robert H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Burghley, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William


Butler, Richard Austen
Hammersley, Samuel S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hartland, George A.
Petherick, M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Hornby, Frank
Pybus, Percy John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Christie, James Archibald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, William D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Remer, John R.


Conant, R. J. E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Cross, R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, Harry R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dickie, John P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spens, William Patrick


Donner, P. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Storey, Samuel


Doran, Edward
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Eastwood, John Francis
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Eden, Robert Anthony
McKie, John Hamilton
Tate, Mavis Constance

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not know that he intended to move it. I certainly gave him notice that I intended to raise a point concerning Scotland, but if he goes ahead with it, I suppose it is all right. I showed him decent courtesy, and I expected that he would extend the same to me.

Main Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 35.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wise, Alfred R.


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Womersley, Walter James


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Whyte, Jardine Bell



Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wills, Wilfrid D.



Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Briant, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. McGovern.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
 [1.18 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Litter, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Llewellin, Major John J.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Eastwood, John Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Balniel, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bateman, A. L.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Borodale, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Maitland, Adam


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
Meller, Sir Richard James


Browne, Captain A. C.
Granville, Edgar
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Burghley, Lord
Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd ft Chisw'k)


Butler, Richard Austen
Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Butt, Sir Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shephard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Christie, James Archibald
Hartland. George A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Clarke, Frank
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nunn, William


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Colman, N. C. D.
Hornby, Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace


Conant, R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cooke, Douglas
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Craven-Ellis, William
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pybus, Percy John


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
James, Wing Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cross, R. H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knight, Holford
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Renter, John R.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross, Ronald D.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leckie, J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dickie, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Donner, P. W.
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Doran, Edward
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 33.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Weymouth, Viscount


Scone, Lord
Sutcliffe, Harold
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Selley, Harry R.
Tata, Mavis Constance
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wise, Alfred R.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Withers, Sir John James


Spens. William Patrick
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Womersley, Walter James


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Strause, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton-
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Sir George Penny and Major Ceorge Davies.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Briant, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Thome, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Edwards, Charles
Mander, Geoffrey le M
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. McGovern.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Monday next."—[Captain Margesson.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Coatbridge Gas Company, which was presented on the 21st day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Cheltenham
and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 21st day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Cirencester Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 21st day of November and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order until Monday next (18 th December) pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after One o'Clock p.m. on Friday, 15th December.